Full Defense - does it exist?

[Lizard Lips]

One of my players wanted to know if you still received your Attacks of Opportunity if you choose full defense as your action for the round. I hopped right to the PHB, but I couldn't find anything about the Full Defense action. I started wondering if I'd made the whole thing up...

The way we were playing it, you could fight defensively and take a -4 to your attacks, but gain a +2 to your AC. With the Full Defense action, you made no attacks, but gained a +4 to your AC. Did I just dream that rule up or what?

If it IS a real rule, do you still make AoO when you choose the full defense option?

 

[Crothian]

The full defense option is real. I don't know about AoO though.

 

[hammymchamham]

It exists. Here is the SRD's version:

Total defense [Standard][AoO: No]
Description: A character doesn't attack or perform any other activity other than moving at base speed, but the character gets a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round. The character's AC improves at the start of this action, so it helps against any attacks of opportunity provoked while moving.

EDIT:

Also, IMO you'd get your AoO that round because the Total defense doesn't take away your threatening the area around you.

 

[melkoriii]

It exists. Here is the SRD's version:

Total defense [Standard][AoO: No]
Description: A character doesn't attack or perform any other activity other than moving at base speed, but the character gets a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round. The character's AC improves at the start of this action, so it helps against any attacks of opportunity provoked while moving.

EDIT:

Also, IMO you'd get your AoO that round because the Total defense doesn't take away your threatening the area around you.

Tho it says "A character doesn't attack or perform any other activity other than moving at base speed"

So it a AoO a attack?

If no then you can not use trip and other feats/attack ations with a AoO.

But We know you can use thoughs attack ations with a AoO.

So it is an attack and so you can not take one when you take a Total defense. By doing so would open up a weak spot and give no AC bonus.

 

[Legildur]

This is what I got from the Wizard's Customer Service line just over a year ago. Not Sage, but....

I am uncertain about some aspects of a the Total Defense action:

1. What is the maximum distance you can move while using Total Defense? I think that for a human fighter wearing a chain shirt and lightly encumbered that it would be a maximum of 30'.

You could move your normal movement. So 30' in your above example.

2. Does a character using Total Defense threaten an area?

Yes.


3. If the answer to (2) is yes, then I assume that they can flank an opponent if their movement stops in the appropriate square.

Yes you may flank.

4. If the answer to (2) is yes, then can they take an AOO? If so, what is the penalty to the attack roll? (-4 as per fighting defensively?)

You still threaten the area around you, so you can make AOO. You would suffer the -4 penalty since you are using Total Defense.


Thanks and Happy Gaming!

Alex W.
Wizards of the Coast - Game Support

 

[Sarellion]

Somehow I've got the feeling they mistook it for fighting defensively.

 

[Legildur]

So did I Sarellion, but no. A few days after the last reply:

Alex,

Your response sounds like you are talking about 'fighting defensively' rather than 'total defense'. Can you please clarify that this is not the case?

I am talking about 'total defense' as described on page 127 of the PHB. Nowhere in that text does it say that you stop threatening the area around you or prevent you from effectively flanking an opponent.

Thanks and Happy Gaming!

Alex W.
Wizards of the Coast - Game Support

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I concur with Alex.

It would be silly to imagine that just because you are fighting defensively, someone can initiate a grapple against you without drawing an AoO, and in fact, if you are really fighting defensively, I'd expect you to be particularly hard to grab ahold of.

The only thing Alex seems to be pulling out of the air is the -4 penalty to hit, but it is a reasonable assumption. You could just as easily assume that no penalty to hit exists with AoO (no penalty to hit on attacks is mentioned), but that might become abusable with certain non-core feats so Alex is making the safe ruling.

 

[The Souljourner]

When will people learn, WotC customer service is NOT a definitive guide to the rules? No where does total defense mention about a -4 to hit. Obviously this guy didn't know what he was talking about.

This is another one of those stupid cases where you have to jump forward in time and declare your character isn't going to do anything for the turn. Even though really there's nothing stopping him from taking an attack of opportunity later.

I would say you definitely still threaten, and if you wanted to take an attack of opportunity, you could, but for the rest of the round, you lose the +4 to AC. However, that's totally a judgement call. By the rules, you can't make an attack. I just feel like that's stupid... I mean, why can't you change your mind? "Damn, I'm stuck in this defensive stance for 6 seconds, if only there were some way out of it!" It's a manuever, not Otto's Irresistible Tango.

-The Souljourner

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I concur that Alex is pulling the -4 penalty to hit right out of the air. I said it was reasonable, but it is a judgement call.

However, I totally think it is silly to say that if you make an AoO that you lose the +4 bonus to AC. That is completely pulled out of the air as well. AoO are not technically actions. They are not standard actions, partial actions, or even free actions. It would be more sensible to rule that you couldn't take a free action (like talking) while fighting defensively than it would be to say you couldn't make an AoO. Fighting defensively is simply another standard action, only you can apparantly only take a move action with it not a MEA. It does not prevent AoO.