Full Defense - does it exist?

[Ukyo the undead]

I think the full defense is an action that you choose to use your attack skill to defend the blows against you.

You are not simply covering your body with your arms or using your shield in an "Eric position(D&D cartoon)". You are active in the fighting , so you would have no problem in doing a attac that not compromise your position, which is the case of an AoO.


The -4 penalty probabily(sp) came from an analogie(sp?) between the full defense and the defensive atack -4 penalty.

 

[Murrdox]

The rule never says that you don't threaten, so in my mind it does make sense that you would be able to make AoO. However, I think the PHB neglects this possibility. Thus, using the -4 to hit penalty from the Fighting Defensively action seems to make the most sense.

You wouldn't be doing a very good job of "Total Defense" if you just let someone bull-rush you without taking a swipe at them. The -4 to attack for AoO IS somewhat arbitrary... as it comes from another rule, but I think it's about the best you can get.

And I DON'T agree with taking away the AC bonus once you make the attack.

A fighter with a reach weapon and combat reflexes could put himself on "Total Defense" to guard characters behind him from a file of charging goblins. Granted, he could just stand there normally and take the attacks of opportunity he'd normally get, but since all he's doing is standing there defending, I don't see why he couldn't both dodge AND take AoO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Total Defense is like any other non-attack action. If you do a double move, you can still make AoOs. If you cast a spell, you can still make AoOs. If you dance a jig, you can still take AoOs. (All of these assume you have an appropriate melee weapon available, of course.)

The sentence "you don't attack or perform any other action" is simply there to denote the fact that Total Defense is a standard action, not an option you layer on top of another action (like Fighting Defensively).

J