Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amaroq" data-source="post: 5144354" data-attributes="member: 15470">Mmm. We may have to agree to disagree, because I find myself disagreeing with your three issues. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't agree; I think there are plenty of reasons why that "works" for me: parrying a weapon, moving within my (much larger than me) 5x5 square... etc.I don't agree. It takes two to tango. If you've only got one, you can do forms .. if you have two allies willing to cross swords, you can spar ... but its not "combat". I disagree. I think that leads to an "I walk forward, staying in Total Defense" mechanic, with the players asserting that they're in Total Defense whenever they're in potentially hostile territory. That leads to starting every combat with all parties in Total Defense ass the only logical outcome; I think that badly negates the "power" of Surprise, as we're all at a -2 to hit all targets during a surprise round. To my mind, that's a consequence detrimental to game play: I like having Perception/Stealth be something that can work to the players' advantage or disadvantage.Since we feel so opposite, and we've had a few goes at convincing each other, I think I'm willing to write this off as an agree-to-disagree case. . . .That said, I'll take my last shot at responding to your specific comments, because I feel like we're missing each other on one key point in the discussion.It feels to me like most of the confusion is coming up where I'm trying to make a point about "how Total Defense works during combat", and I'm failing to state my argument clearly enough, so you are interpreting those comments to apply to the case "Allowing Total Defense out of combat."Each of the six points I made about Total Defense referred to "In my experience, regarding Total Defense when it is action usable during combat only." My intent there has always been to discuss the benefit of considering "total defense during combat", specifically against an "attack from a hidden enemy".My comments there are not aimed at minimizing the benefit of "taking total defense out of combat"; in fact, I'm trying to argue that the benefit of taking total defense out of combat is TOO LARGE, not too small!I've trying to indicate that I think that the number of cases which will be affected by allowing "taking total defenses out of combat" is much larger than the number of cases where "total defense in combat" affects an "attack from a hidden enemy".Therefore, I conclude that the argument you advanced in post 27 and again in post 30, essentially, "{characters in combat} can use total defense, even to protect themselves from an unknown opponent, but those out of combat cannot. That's crazy," to be argument that does not argue persuasively for allowing Total Defense outside of combat.I agree! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Again, I was trying to say, that, in my experience of the game, allowing Total Defense only in combat, I can't recall a time I've seen a monster take Total Defense; it is an action which I've certainly seen Player Characters take. Therefore, if "Total defense during combat, versus an unseen attacker" does get left off as an edge case, its more likely to benefit the PC's than to hurt the PC's, so its not worth complicating the rules to cover.(Assuming it was an intentional design decision, and not an oversight; you seem to prefer the interpretation that this was neglect, in which case - well, the same argument applies: if its an area of the rules that was neglected, but basically and only minimally to the PC's benefit, its hardly worth fixing.)Yes, you're spot on, in that if we allow Total Defense as a regular action outside of combat, I think its reasonable to assume that most guard monsters, etc, are in Total Defense all the time .. which is an interpretation I personally dislike, and think winds up favoring the monsters more than the players.That's a very optimistic view, and the amount of WotC errata fixing exploitable combinations of rules does sort of seem to argue against it ... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />... but fair enough; I have the same expectation, and I don't want to invite players who don't play reasonably back to my game!Most of my arguments stem from trying to pre-empt the munchkin rules-lawyer who would basically state "No, I'm in Total Defense all the time. Look, I even wrote it on my character sheet!" <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=";)" />If we're making the assumption "the players elect Total Defense outside of combat only when its a reasonable choice, and the DM awards the +2 bonus only if he agrees that its a reasonable choice," then I'm much less worried about the effects of allowing Total Defense outside of combat - and I think that caveat gets us back out of the "monsters are on Total Defense all the time" case.Hmm. That I can do! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />"A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides." <- PHB 266."Determine surprise. The DM determines whether any combatants are surprised. If any combatants notice enemy combatants without being noticed in return, the aware combatants gain a surprise round," also PHB 266.And PHB 267: "Some battles begin with a surprise round. A surprise round occurs if any combatants are unaware of enemy combatants’ presence or hostile intentions. For example, if you fail your Perception check to notice concealed enemies, you’re surprised. Or if supposed allies spring an attack and you failed your Insight check to notice the attackers’ traitorous intentions, you’re surprised. But if any of your allies made their Perception or Insight checks, they’re not surprised. When any combatants achieve surprise, they act in initiative order during the surprise round. Surprised combatants don’t act at all during the surprise round."I'd define "Actually Aware" to mean what the PHB means by "aware", which the PHB gives an example of as made "a Perception check to notice concealed enemies."So, yes, you must have sensed a hidden or invisible creature with a Perception check to initiate combat with it.Otherwise, you can walk into a seemingly empty room with an invisible creature and declare, "I start combat in case there's anything in this room, haha!"(Its not reasonable to, granted, but you can.)Then, because combat is started, the invisible creature doesn't get its Surprise Round?No. For my money, the player can declare "I'm in combat!" all he wants - if his character doesn't perceive the enemy, the enemy gets a surprise round when it decides to reveal itself, and the surprised character doesn't participate until the first real round.Except for the bits where: - the character takes an Standard action before the Surprise round begins - the character gains a mechanical in-combat benefit with no associated in-combat penalty   (where the usual penalty is loss of said Standard action)<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> .. So I can't say I buy the "does not contradict the RAW" argument! . . . Okay, so you don't buy my fluff argument. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />However, that got me wondering, what do you envision "Total Defense" as looking like?What actions can a character be taking, outside of combat, that make him somehow more defensive than he normally is?What does that look like, exactly?What elements would a - to keep things simple - sword and board fighter take to be considered in a "Total Defense" state without an enemy combatant.How would those elements be different in Total Defense than they are from precautions that we would expect any reasonable experienced warrior would be taking while slowly exploring potentially hostile territory?I suspect this is where we're really talking across each other!</blockquote>

Verification