Wizards Custserv response on Total Defense

[reapersaurus]

And don't trust cust.service, if I recall they know less about the rules than anyone. On the old boards we had post upon post upon post of examples of them not knowing the simplest of rules.

/rant Than what's the F-ing POINT of paying their people and having them reply to emails??!!

I swear, WotC's approach to rules clarifications with 3E is beginning to really make me hurl.
More importantly, it really seems like they have NO concern for establishing concrete rules clarifications.

Let's face it: The Sage isn't cutting it, and hasn't for quite some time.

This board alone comes up with more questions than he is willing, or able, to answer clearly.

 

[Legildur]

Okay, I got a clarification back from Alex W. @ custserv:

>> 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.

 

[Claude Raines]

/rant Than what's the F-ing POINT of paying their people and having them reply to emails??!!

I swear, WotC's approach to rules clarifications with 3E is beginning to really make me hurl.
More importantly, it really seems like they have NO concern for establishing concrete rules clarifications.

Let's face it: The Sage isn't cutting it, and hasn't for quite some time.

This board alone comes up with more questions than he is willing, or able, to answer clearly.

Well, I don't really know about the cust.serv people, but I would like to hear evidence on how the Sage (Skip Williams) isn't really cutting it. He might not have everything exactly right, but I think most of the time he does a good job.

I also don't see your point about no concrete rules clarifications when every month they update the DnD rules FAQ. It has quite a lot of clarifications to the rules.

Finally, about this board coming up with more questions than the Sage can answer, well duh! This board has over 3,000 members while Skip has to field these, plus those from the Wizard's board, plus those mailed & emailed to him. Since he DOES have other things to do than to just clarify rules all day, then it's no surprise that he can't answer every single question that comes up on this board.

 

[Conaill]

BTW, this is the exact same response I remember from the Sage a couple of months back (now sadly buried in the old boards, I guess).

Except that he qualified it more as an *opinion*, not necessarily as a general rule. I'm going by memory here though...

Look at it this way: if you weren't able to take any AoO's, you would put yourself open to actions like Disarm, Grapple, etc. Disarm would be a particularly nasty tactic, because it's an opposed attack roll, so you wouldn't even benefit from the +4 bonus to AC. Heck, you could even argue the Total Defender shouldn't be able to do an opposed attack roll, because he can't attack.

 

[Victim]

Total defense = no attacks.
Fighting defensively is a totally different matter. You can't get AoO with total defense, you have no modifier to your attack rolls, because you have no attack rolls. Any action that effects your attack rolls lasts till your next round (ie Power Attack, Expertise, Fighting Defensively, etc).
Total Defense, if I recall, is a Full Round action which means you get a 5' step and no more (as is the case with ALL full round actions, full attack, etc- unless the Full round action involves movement ie running, charge, etc).

And don't trust cust.service, if I recall they know less about the rules than anyone. On the old boards we had post upon post upon post of examples of them not knowing the simplest of rules.

pasted from the SRD.

Total defense [Standard][AoO: No]

Total Defense is NOT a full round action. Perhaps you should check your position before attacking another's knowledge of the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


In any case, total defense is bad enough even allowing attacks of opportunity. I'd think that one series of attacks at -4 with a +2 AC bonus (or +3 with 5 ranks in tumble) is greater than doing nothing for a +4 bonus. Since you can stack fight defensively and Expertise, an sequence attack at -9 with a +7 (or +8) AC boost is definitely better than total defense.

 

[Caliban]

This isn't a "sage" (as in Skip Williams) response. I'd suggest renaming the thread to reflect this.

This is, however, nearly identical to the answer the Sage gave when asked this same question.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Well, I don't really know about the cust.serv people, but I would like to hear evidence on how the Sage (Skip Williams) isn't really cutting it. He might not have everything exactly right, but I think most of the time he does a good job.

Latest issue of Dragon's (293 I think) sage advice column. The question regarding Iajuitsu Focus and sneak attacks. If you've read the section of OA it'll hurt your head. A lot.

Iajuitsu Focus is a skill that allows extra damage on an attack if you attack a flat-footed foe in the same round you draw your weapon. They have things called Iajuitsu duels in which the order goes like this...

Size up each other (Sense motive checks)

Attack! First person gets to attack a flat-footed foe and do more damage.

The question of the sage...."Can you get a sneak attack in an Iajuitsu duel?"

The answer "The sense motive roll counts as an action, since neither is flat-footed or denied a dexterity modifier, no. If for some reason they were, then you can stack Focus dice and sneak attack dice."

If this were true then the duels wouldn't work....

 

[Claude Raines]

The answer "The sense motive roll counts as an action, since neither is flat-footed or denied a dexterity modifier, no. If for some reason they were, then you can stack Focus dice and sneak attack dice."

If this were true then the duels wouldn't work....

Well, that's one out of 22 in that Dragon Magazine. Everyone is occasionally going to make a mistake. I would hesitate to call it falling down on the job unless it happened quite frequently. If you can point out one in each Dragon (or even 1 out of every three or four), I might be wiling to concede Reapersaurus' point. After all, he says the sage has been consistently falling down on the job for quite some time. I just haven't seen that.