Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5145470" data-attributes="member: 71571">There's absurdities if you do, but let's go on.It's not a matter of taking it outside of combat for me.  It's taking it outside of the round structure that is the problem.  Now, if you're in a situation where there's a surprise round, you cannot be in total defense, because to do so requires being in an encounter to begin with.Outside an encounter, you cannot be 'at total defense' simply because you're not in a situation where you have an idea of what you're defending from.  You don't need to be individually aware of every combatant, but to be able to -defend against something- you need a broad idea of what that is.  That then allows you the defense which applies against the unexpected; you don't know that -particular- combatant shoots arrows, but you've got a general idea of what to expect being that people are shooting arrows at you.  As an example.Combat is not this 'just stand there until something happens' deal.  It is -active- and total defense is not a 'Don't attack, and I'm better at defense' thing.  It's -actively- trying to ward things off with your weapon, shield, spellpower, whatever.If you're in negotiations, congrats, you're actually IN a round structure--skill challenges follow initiative just like combat--you're actually taking actions.  So it's not a rules problem to go Total Defense instead of doing something... and in some cases, where traps might be involved, it's a smart move for less mechanically inclined players;  If it's a diplomatic sequence, however, you might find yourself offending the other side by adopting an active combat stance.And do not kid yourself, it IS an active combat stance.The DM decides when an encounter begins.  This is because the players are not setting up encounters, are not adjudicating encounters, and have no control over the overall flow of encounters.  To think that they would is utter and complete nonsense.The DM decides when encounters begin because he is running the damn game.  It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of that's what his damn job is to do.Seriously.  What?Saying the DM's unfair for deciding when encounters start is like saying players are being unfair for deciding their character's actions.  It's a rediculous stance to even contemplate.No, it is NOT reasonable for players to, before an encounter happens (which they do not know when is going to happen) go around and say 'No, the encounter happens one round before you say it does, because we want total defense.'  That's not reasonable.  The encounter starts when the challenge begins, not a round before, and not a round after.  The players do not control that, the existance or non-existance of the challenge does.If players are able to take these options, then an encounter is supposedly underway.  They don't know the nature of the encounter, but so long as there is an encounter, there's no problem with this.Outside of encounters?It is a waste of players' and DM's time.Regardless, if your player decides he's at Total Defense or Ready all the time, he's in an active combat stance and cannot benefit from a short rest.  And that's when you move on to the next encounter, when he inevitably rests.</blockquote>

Verification