Fighting Defensively

[noparlpf]

According to the PHB (I believe page 140) fighting defensively gives you a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the round and a -4 penalty on attack rolls for the round, right? So can you do this if you don't attack, but cast a spell instead?

[Demons_eye]

Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action

You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

No because it is a full round attack action.

[noparlpf]

This is the passage I'm talking about:

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. This bonus stacks with the AC bonus granted by the Combat Expertise feat (page 92).

This is what you just quoted:

Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

[Claudius Maximus]

That involves making an attack with your standard action, so it would not be applicable to spellcasting or use of most Su abilities and so forth.

Now, you definitely could cast a touch spell, hold the charge, and use a standard action next round to attack with it while fighting defensively. I'm less clear on whether you could do so with the free attack you get when you cast the spell, but I believe the answer is yes there as well.

[Frosty]

That involves making an attack with your standard action, so it would not be applicable to spellcasting or use of most Su abilities and so forth.

Now, you definitely could cast a touch spell, hold the charge, and use a standard action next round to attack with it while fighting defensively. I'm less clear on whether you could do so with the free attack you get when you cast the spell, but I believe the answer is yes there as well.
The answer is definitely yes.

[Randomguy]

You could cast a quickened spell, but if it involved a touch attack you'd take the penalty.

[noparlpf]

If you can be more cautious in battle while fighting with a weapon, why not be more cautious while casting a spell? I'd think it would work for any spell involving an attack roll.

For spells not involving an attack roll, I would think a Concentration check with a DC of 15+the level of the spell you're trying to cast might make sense, even though that's obviously not in the rules here.

[Demons_eye]

Because it's under the attack section when it says attack it refers to the above meaning attacking as a Standard Action. It's an option of the Standard Action attack section not of casting spells section. Meaning you couldn't cast a Standard Action spell at the same time.

This is further implied by the fact it stacks with the combat expertise feat that only works in melee combat

Edit:


If you can be more cautious in battle while fighting with a weapon, why not be more cautious while casting a spell? I'd think it would work for any spell involving an attack roll.

For spells not involving an attack roll, I would think a Concentration check with a DC of 15+the level of the spell you're trying to cast might make sense, even though that's obviously not in the rules here.


Sorry? Am I reading this wrong because you can cast defensively and do just that and thats in the the section of casting as a Standard Action.

Edit:Edit:


Casting on the Defensive: You may attempt to cast a spell while
paying attention to threats and avoiding blows. In this case, you are
no more vulnerable to attack than you would be if you were just
standing there, so casting a spell while on the defensive does not
provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a
Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means
that you lose the spell.

[noparlpf]

Casting defensively means you don't provoke attacks of opportunity, not that you're actually harder to hit if someone tries to attack you.

[Kenneth]

Casting on the Defensive: You may attempt to cast a spell while
paying attention to threats and avoiding blows. In this case, you are
no more vulnerable to attack than you would be if you were just
standing there, so casting a spell while on the defensive does not
provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a
Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means
that you lose the spell.

Yeah thi sis in here Under different section of standard actions.

Sometimes I too just fail to read teh next section (or even the next line) about particular rule. while You can 'cast' defensively you do not get teh same bonuses that you would if you were fighting defensively.

also if you are not attacking.. thne you aren't fighting so.. there is that,

[Demons_eye]

Casting defensively means you don't provoke attacks of opportunity, not that you're actually harder to hit if someone tries to attack you.

It means just that, because you're not giving the opportunity to attack you because you're casting defensively. Its better than fighting defensively because an attack that never happens can never hit.

[Feytalist]

The pertinent part seems to be "You can choose to fight defensively while attacking". Does casting a spell constitute an attack? I don't think so. Especially since there is already a separate clause for casting defensively.

[Telonius]

"Attack" and "Cast a Spell" are separate kinds of standard actions. Spells don't get iteratives, you generally can't use Power Attack on a spell, you can't use Combat Expertise on a spell. Weaponlike spells do often use a ranged touch attack roll to see if they hit, but that doesn't make the spell an attack action.

There are weird cases like the Duskblade, that can actually channel spells through their weapon. A Duskblade could benefit from fighting defensively while casting. But that's because they're delivering their spells through a normal attack, not because the act of casting a spell would usually get the option of fighting defensively.

[Person_Man]

Shorter Version: Don't use the Fighting Defensively rules or Combat Expertise. It's not worth it.

[Amphetryon]

Shorter Version: Don't use the Fighting Defensively rules or Combat Expertise. It's not worth it.

Depends on party optimization levels and some other factors, but often true. I've seen some spreadsheets that indicated that Combat Expertise is a better tool for survival than Power Attack, but I don't recall the root assumptions in their calculations.

[Yuki Akuma]

Miss chances are better than AC. Cast a miss chance spell. :smallwink:

[noparlpf]

One of the new guys here at my school wanted to design an "unhittable" character. I guess things like this might come in handy for that? The point isn't to deal out too much damage, but to be able to survive long enough to either kill things over an hour or to realize that your opponent has fast healing and to just leave.

[Yuki Akuma]

AC isn't worth it. So no, this wouldn't be useful.

Miss chances, my man.

[Zombimode]

AC isn't worth it.

Hm, I wouldn make such a bold statement.
It really depends on the level of optimisation and the campaigns power and magic level.

[noparlpf]

I was thinking of building something with that idea. AC, miss chances, evasion, etc. Mettle would also be nice but I can't think of how to get it besides Goliath Rogue.

[Lapak]

Casting defensively means you don't provoke attacks of opportunity, not that you're actually harder to hit if someone tries to attack you.Indeed. Because that's the best you can manage when you're not fighting. Fighting defensively increases your AC because you're actively engaging in combat. When you're spellcasting, you're not fighting, which leaves you open. The best you can hope for is not to make yourself obviously vulnerable.

[Amphetryon]

I was thinking of building something with that idea. AC, miss chances, evasion, etc. Mettle would also be nice but I can't think of how to get it besides Goliath Rogue.

Pious Templar might be useful toward this goal, while potentially opening up additional spells to stack miss chances, depending on entry method.

EDIT: off the top of my head, Duskblade 13/Pious Templar 3/Jaunter 4, while not a spellcasting powerhouse, could work as a pretty survivable build that combines good real defenses with some offensive punch.

[ericgrau]

I've done the math on combat expertise before and it becomes extremely useful in melee for those who already have a high attack bonus and AC. Basically you go from get hit sometimes + hit most of the time to almost never get hit + hit sometimes. It's an easy way to win duels, especially if your opponent kills his attack bonus with power attack. I wouldn't normally fight defensively unless you're hurting but not yet enough to flee. Or, more on topic, if you're a wizard and you know your touch spell will still hit anyway. Likewise you might want to open with a normal attack and then wait until you get hit before using combat expertise, unless you know even one hit from the foe is trouble. Or if you open with a single attack CE and no one else has engaged the target yet you can screw over the opponent's full attack response. And if you're a tripper you can still hit on the touch attack if he tries to leave your threatened area.

For anyone with who makes even a mild optimization attempt, miss chance provides much less protection than AC until at least level 15, if not later. Even then I'd get both. 24,000 gp for a measly 20% is far worse than grabbing a few cheap +1s. Blowing a precious action on other methods isn't any better.

[Curmudgeon]

According to the PHB (I believe page 140) fighting defensively gives you a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the round and a -4 penalty on attack rolls for the round, right? So can you do this if you don't attack, but cast a spell instead?
No, you're required "to fight defensively when attacking". But weaponlike spells can qualify for that attack. From Complete Arcane on page 85:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. As ericgrau mentioned, it's often worthwhile with weaponlike spells which attack the enemy's touch AC.

[Gotterdammerung]

As long as it is a weapon like spell you should be able to fight defensively with it.


Combat expertise is real nice as long as you ignore the attack penalty on things like disarm and sunder. By the raw, you would take the Combat expertise atk penalty on all opposed attack roles in the round, and that would make you unreasonably vulnerable. I always house rule it back to what i figure is the intent. It doesn't make any sense to have the master fencer who is untouchable get disarmed by a child.

[Hiro Protagonest]

One of the new guys here at my school wanted to design an "unhittable" character.

Impossible. Not even Stoneskin + Resist Energy + Fly/Overland Flight + Displacement can make you unhittable. But it's far closer to unhittable than fighting defensively.

[faceroll]

It means just that, because you're not giving the opportunity to attack you because you're casting defensively. Its better than fighting defensively because an attack that never happens can never hit.

It depends on how high your AC is vs. how high your concentration check is. A level 3 wizard can easily have an AC where CR appropriate creatures can only hit him with a natural 20, but he only has a 50% chance of making a concentration check.

[Demons_eye]

Looking at the TO.

Wizard concentration check: Con Mod of +3, +6 ranks, +3 skill focus, +4 combat casting for a 3rd level wizard meaning 16 without rolling looking for a DC of 17 (15 plus 2nd level spells their max.) Or be Elan and expend Psionic Focus for 15 plus con mod of +2.

Wizard maxing AC: Grater Mage Armor +6, Shield +4, Alter self form +6 NA, and +3 dex for 3rd level wizard ending with 27 which is overkill really.

While the AC is impressive it could still be hit on a nat 20 while the concentration check can not.

[faceroll]

Looking at the TO.

Wizard concentration check: Con Mod of +3, +6 ranks, +3 skill focus, +4 combat casting for a 3rd level wizard meaning 16 without rolling looking for a DC of 17 (15 plus 2nd level spells their max.) Or be Elan and expend Psionic Focus for 15 plus con mod of +2.

Wizard maxing AC: Grater Mage Armor +6, Shield +4, Alter self form +6 NA, and +3 dex for 3rd level wizard ending with 27 which is overkill really.

While the AC is impressive it could still be hit on a nat 20 while the concentration check can not.

And then I laugh at you for being a wizard with two wasted feats and without a 20 or 22 starting int.

[Demons_eye]

1. Was TO
2. Elan with +2 con works just as well
3. I can have fun in any type of game.
4. My point still stands; An attack that never happens can never hit.

[faceroll]

1. Was TO
2. Elan with +2 con works just as well
3. I can have fun in any type of game.
4. My point still stands; An attack that never happens can never hit.

I don't know what you're getting at.

[Demons_eye]

My post about concentration checks was Theoretical Optimization meaning not necessarily used in a game but showing what could be done.

An Elan with +2 con could make the concentration check on a nat 1 so that works better little to no effort and opening up to a lot of other options.

I can have fun playing a fighter that TWF in a low optimization game or a batman wizard in a high optimization game. Any level of game play can be fun for me. So saying you laugh at someone for their character choice shows, to me at least, a set mind in game play. Playing a character with Skill focus Concentration and Combat Cast is not wrong in my books or laughable if that is what the player wants to do and that's the level of optimization we are playing at.

My entire point of the concentration check being better vs the fighting defensively with a spell is that AC can be beat but the concentration check can not.

[faceroll]

My entire point of the concentration check being better vs the fighting defensively with a spell is that AC can be beat but the concentration check can not.

Yeah, if you ignore the opportunity cost of being an Elan and poor feat choice.

[Demons_eye]

Yeah, if you ignore the opportunity cost of being an Elan and poor feat choice.

Unless that's what I wanted to do, I don't have to play to the most optimal. Playing an immortal wizard playboy with mind powers sounds fun really. Next character idea right there.

[Seharvepernfan]

Well, this sucks. I always thought if you used your standard action for it, you got the bonus.

No more tumbling past guards with +6 AC :smallfrown:

[Curmudgeon]

Well, this sucks. I always thought if you used your standard action for it, you got the bonus.

No more tumbling past guards with +6 AC :smallfrown:
Why not? You're just describing the total defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense) standard action, rather than the fighting defensively standard action. You've still got a move action left for tumbling past guards.

[Seharvepernfan]

Why not? You're just describing the total defense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense) standard action, rather than the fighting defensively standard action. You've still got a move action left for tumbling past guards.

Wow ok ill just be quiet now