Does a PC in Total Defense get an AoO vs someone who charges them?

[LokiDR]

I do not see total defense and full round casting as quivelant types of action. In one case, you are focusing specifically on combat, in the other you are ignoring it.

I can't find the FAQ reference Hyp eluded to earlier, so that doesn't help.

The way I see it, total defense is only a standard action and does not infinge on any other actions you might take in a round. Casting a spell with a full round casting time specifically states that it does interfer with other actions (you can be disrupted).

I don't think the total defense option prevents a person from taking free actions. Likewise, I don't think it prevents AoOs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't find the FAQ reference Hyp eluded to earlier, so that doesn't help.

It may have been a Sage Reply that's been quoted in here a lot (which would explain why I have a vague memory of Skip pointing out his own house rule at the end of it).

Artoomis or kreynolds might remember.

-Hyp.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Loki, I agree that Total Defense is not a full-round action. What I'm referring to is that the defense bonus applies until the character's next move (a full round) at the cost of making no attacks. It seems reasonable to me that if the benefit last a full round, then so does the restriction.

Another way to think of it: If a character performs a charge maneuver, he gains a bonus to hit, but suffers an AC penalty for an entire round. If a character uses Power Attack to boost damage +4 points, the character suffers -4 BAB for an entire round. Why should Total Defense only limit a character during his move, but not for the entire round?

 

[LokiDR]

Loki, I agree that Total Defense is not a full-round action. What I'm referring to is that the defense bonus applies until the character's next move (a full round) at the cost of making no attacks. It seems reasonable to me that if the benefit last a full round, then so does the restriction.

Another way to think of it: If a character performs a charge maneuver, he gains a bonus to hit, but suffers an AC penalty for an entire round. If a character uses Power Attack to boost damage +4 points, the character suffers -4 BAB for an entire round. Why should Total Defense only limit a character during his move, but not for the entire round?

Because the cost is paid during the characters action. You give up any other standard action. AoOs don't come up that often, even when you try to make them come up.

 

[Rel]

Because the cost is paid during the characters action. You give up any other standard action. AoOs don't come up that often, even when you try to make them come up.

Then why would the same not be true of Fighting Defensively?

 

[Al'Kelhar]

The reason for the confusion is really that the D&D combat rules are not wholly turn-based and are not wholly real-time or simultaneous. That is, there are things that a character can only do during his turn (e.g. move actions), things that he can only do during others' turns (e.g. AoOs), and things that he has to do during his turn and others' turns (e.g. full round spell casting). Maybe 3.5E clarifies the distinction, but there are confusing examples, such as Full Defence, in 3E.

There are two ways in which Full Defence can be played:

(a) like Charge or Power Attack, its effects on attacks, AC etc. are in effect from the start of the character's action to the start of the character's next turn; or

(b) its effects on attacks and AC are in effect only during the character's turn.

Obviously, (a) would mean the character in Full Defence would be unable to make AoOs since he is precluded from making melee attacks, but would have the +4 AC bonus against all attacks made against him until his next turn. On the other hand (b) would mean the character "drops out" of Full Defence once his turn has finished, and can make AoOs (assuming he would normally be able to do so) and loses the +4 AC bonus. Which one you use comes down to which of the following interpretations of the rule you prefer:

(a) Full Defence is designed to minimise the character's chance of being hit, no matter what attacks him - akin to Expertise or Fighting Defensively; or

(b) Full Defence is designed to enable movement into and out of threatened squares without being hit by the AoOs provoked by doing so - akin to Mobility or Tumble.

IMC, we prefer (a) - the "move your full speed" part being purely optional - but it really is open to interpretation.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Al'Kelhar]

The reason for the confusion is really that the D&D combat rules are not wholly turn-based and are not wholly real-time or simultaneous. That is, there are things that a character can only do during his turn (e.g. move actions), things that he can only do during others' turns (e.g. AoOs), and things that he has to do during his turn and others' turns (e.g. full round spell casting). Maybe 3.5E clarifies the distinction, but there are confusing examples, such as Full Defence, in 3E.

There are two ways in which Full Defence can be played:

(a) like Charge or Power Attack, its effects on attacks, AC etc. are in effect from the start of the character's action to the start of the character's next turn; or

(b) its effects on attacks and AC are in effect only during the character's turn.

Obviously, (a) would mean the character in Full Defence would be unable to make AoOs since he is precluded from making melee attacks, but would have the +4 AC bonus against all attacks made against him until his next turn. On the other hand (b) would mean the character "drops out" of Full Defence once his turn has finished, and can make AoOs (assuming he would normally be able to do so) and loses the +4 AC bonus. Which one you use comes down to which of the following interpretations of the rule you prefer:

(a) Full Defence is designed to minimise the character's chance of being hit, no matter what attacks him - akin to Expertise or Fighting Defensively; or

(b) Full Defence is designed to enable movement into and out of threatened squares without being hit by the AoOs provoked by doing so - akin to Mobility or Tumble.

IMC, we prefer (a) - the "move your full speed" part being purely optional - but it really is open to interpretation.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are two ways in which Full Defence can be played:

There are at least three.

You missed c: Total Defense is a Standard Action which gives +4 to AC until your next action. All the rest of the verbiage - "doesn't attack or perform any other activity other than moving at base speed" - is simply a description of what "Standard Action" means: an action that allows only a move (with the understanding that a move may always be substituted for a MEA)

Since Standard Actions don't prevent AoOs, under Interpretation c, Total Defense does not prevent AoOs. The AC bonus explicitly lasts until your next action, so it does not expire at the end of your turn. And unlike Fighting Defensively, no penalties are listed for attacks made as AoOs, so no penalties apply.

Note - I'm not saying this is more valid than Interpretation a (although it is, I believe, more valid than Interpretation b); just that it's another possible reading of the text.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

I am with Hyp in this one. Usually, in the PHB, if any action precludes AoOs, then they say so. Here they don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am with Hyp in this one.

Careful, there... I haven't actually taken a position on this one yet

I simply provided a third option for consideration.

-Hyp.