Total Defense Outside of Combat

[Talakeal]

Quick question spawned by another thread:

Do you allow players to take the Total Defense action out of combat and before initiative have been rolled?

If so, is there any penalty or trade-off for doing so? How long do you allow players to do it for? Do they need to be aware of a specific threat, or can they just stand around all day in Total Defense?

Likewise, if there is no trade-off, does that effectively mean that one the first turn of combat, anyone who hasn't yet had their turn receives a +4 bonus to AC?

[Crake]

Quick question spawned by another thread:

Do you allow players to take the Total Defense action out of combat and before initiative have been rolled?

If so, is there any penalty or trade-off for doing so? How long do you allow players to do it for? Do they need to be aware of a specific threat, or can they just stand around all day in Total Defense?

Likewise, if there is no trade-off, does that effectively mean that one the first turn of combat, anyone who hasn't yet had their turn receives a +4 bonus to AC?

Total defense is a dodge bonus, and so you lose it while flat footed, unless you have something like uncanny dodge.

Also worth noting, if you have 5 ranks in tumble, your bonus from total defense goes to +6

[icefractal]

Yes, but given that it consumes a standard action, it means that you're moving half as fast as the rest of the party if you do so (also, as Crake points out, this won't help if you lose initiative unless you have Uncanny Dodge).

If it's a situation where you know an encounter is about to happen? Then yes - IMC, having the drop is a significant advantage, and the result of "an even fight could turn into an easy fight if you ambush your foes, or a hard fight if they ambush you" is the system working as intended.

Now here's where I diverge from the RAW a bit - I've generalized the rules for hustling and running (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/movement/#TOC-Overland-Movement) to include other actions.

Taking more than a single action each round is "hustling", meaning that it will eventually fatigue you. Eventually meaning at least an hour, and longer than that if the party has any healing. So not a big concern in most dungeon environments, but it could be an issue if want to be continually on the defense as you travel (and/or if the other party members are already hustling - you won't be able to keep up with half the move actions unless you're much faster than they are).

That also means certain actions could be the equivalent of running, which you can only do for [Con score] rounds and then need to rest for one minute. Even for an average person, this means "once every two rounds", so even we count spamming at-will casting in this category, it only slows it down to half pace at most (more like 2/3 pace for mid+ level PCs). I haven't used this much, but it could be applicable for things like "How high in the air can you get with Dimension Door at will + Feather Fall before getting tired?"

[Talakeal]

Then yes - IMC, having the drop is a significant advantage, and the result of "an even fight could turn into an easy fight if you ambush your foes, or a hard fight if they ambush you" is the system working as intended.

I was thinking the exact opposite; if everyone is walking around with a +4 AC the benefit of getting the drop on somebody decreases significantly.

[Crake]

I was thinking the exact opposite; if everyone is walking around with a +4 AC the benefit of getting the drop on somebody decreases significantly.

Right, but as noted, you dont get dodge bonuses while flat footed, and you’re flat footed until you act in the combat initiative, so only people with uncanny dodge would actually benefit, everyone else would gain nothing.

[Talakeal]

Right, but as noted, you dont get dodge bonuses while flat footed, and you’re flat footed until you act in the combat initiative, so only people with uncanny dodge would actually benefit, everyone else would gain nothing.

Yep. Thank you. That does solve the conundrum nicely on both a RAW and RAI level.

[blackwindbears]

I do not. I've never had a player even suggest it. If asked I would rule that taking the physical action described by total defense would be exhausting if kept up for more than a few minutes.

[loky1109]

No Total Def outside combat nor ready action. If you let first you should let second and this is totally against the very idea of initiative.

[Talakeal]

No Total Def outside combat nor ready action. If you let first you should let second and this is totally against the very idea of initiative.

Yeah. Readied actions outside of combat ruined the game last time I ran 3.5.

[Darg]

Unless you are in combat you really shouldn't use the combat rules. Just saying. It's nice to use it as guidelines to approximate time taken for some things, but it was designed for round to round combat, not protracted into hours or days.

[Crake]

Yeah. Readied actions outside of combat ruined the game last time I ran 3.5.

Considering readied actions are “special initiative actions” it would make sense to not allow them outside of initiative.

If you’re aware of an opponent before they are, thats what the surprise round is for, you can ready during that. If you’re both aware of each other, then who acts first is exactly what initiative is for. If you’re not aware of your opponent, then you cant react to your trigger anyway.

Theres no circumstance where readying outside of initiative makes sense.

[rel]

I'd say no, allowing combat actions outside of combat and the initiative system leads to some weird situations.

[YellowJohn]

I might allow it in the right circumstance, like if the party is walking down a corridor they suspect of being trapped I would allow them to take a 'total defense' action against the trap.
I wouldn't allow it while walking down a forest track unless they had reason to suspect an ambush *right here*

[blackwindbears]

I might allow it in the right circumstance, like if the party is walking down a corridor they suspect of being trapped I would allow them to take a 'total defense' action against the trap.
I wouldn't allow it while walking down a forest track unless they had reason to suspect an ambush *right here*

This is reasonably sensible, but total defense works against threats you are aware of. Presumably the character is taking some kind of specific evasive action against the threats they see.

In the context of a corridor I would instead ask the party what their characters are *doing*, perhaps eliciting responses like:

Alice: I hold my shield towards the crumbling wall, I bet it hides a some arrow slits.

Bob: I'm worried about a pit trap, so I'm going to be ready to dive forward at the slightest shift in the ground

Then I'd give circumstance bonuses depending on how what they were actually doing improved their chances.

[Powerdork]

As I understand it (and this is just my trying to get why some things work the way they do), the reason that creatures don't move at twice their speed unless they hustle is that they're taking their time to appreciate their surroundings (represented by their Spot/Listen/Perception checks in response to stimuli), which is why, when characters want to do anything outside of combat, I rule that they need to sacrifice awareness or movement (their choice). A compromise might be moving at half of their normal speed, in this case, as they blend truly paying attention to things besides watching their own hide and their movement.

However, the revelation about the dodge bonus being denied while flat-footed, above, is also a great insight.

[Eladrinblade]

Do you allow players to take the Total Defense action out of combat and before initiative have been rolled?

There is nothing in the rules that says they can't be doing it out of combat. It takes a standard action, so the fastest they can move is a walk. It's a dodge bonus, so if they are ambushed or trigger a trap, they may very well not receive the bonus unless they have uncanny dodge.

[loky1109]

There is nothing in the rules that says they can't be doing it out of combat. It takes a standard action,
You can't make standard action (or any other "action in combat") out of combat.

[Powerdork]

You can't make standard action (or any other "action in combat") out of combat.

If you have a page number we can look at on that one, that'll be decisive. However, it would definitely shut down wizards trying to cast hypnotism, for example (any utility or control spell with a casting time of 1 standard action).

[Logalmier]

You can't make standard action (or any other "action in combat") out of combat.

This is clearly incorrect. Can you not drink a potion outside of combat?

[False God]

Total Defense does not say it requires an enemy or even general awareness of a threat. You just choose to do it. It does say it's an "action in combat" but many of the things you can do in combat you could also do while not in combat.

It's a standard action, but standard actions don't affect your move speed per turn and there's nothing to suggest that while sauntering around town, anyone is moving at more than their normal speed, there's no suggestion they're double-moving, nor that any of their skills and abilities are restricted or improved thanks to "not being in combat". EXCEPT for being flat footed until combat starts.

But then there's a question of how do we declare that combat starts? Could Bob say "I attack that pigeon!" in order to begin combat? Could the DM say no? Depending on where your table balances on the ability for players to initiate elements of the game vs only the DM.

There's nothing stopping a Wizard from casting Mage Armor as soon as he wakes up, unless "Casting a Spell" which is described as an "Action in Combat" can only be undertaken while in combat. But I think that generates a fairly strange world to operate under, since there are many explicitly non-combat spells that last for hours or even days, not to mention Extend and Persist metamagic.

Teal Deer: I would say yes. There's nothing preventing Bob from taking the Total Defense action the moment he wakes up except him supposedly "not being in combat". Bob is essentially saying that from the moment he wakes up, he sees himself as in combat(and there are people IRL who act like this!). He'd also IMO get all of his regular AC bonuses from this "I'm in combat the moment I wake up." declaration. I think there should be some very overt narrative consequences though. Bob is going to stand out, appearing on edge, hand near his weapon, constantly watching for danger. I wouldn't put any sort of penalties on him for doing this, there's nothing in the rules about having a combat that lasts all day(as far as I'm aware). But it should impact his day-to-day life, at least with the way NPCs perceive and react to him. And it would absolutely cost him his ability to actively do anything else, since every waking moment of his standard-action-day is taken up by "Total Defense". Leaving him only with movement, swift or free actions.

[Talakeal]

Well, its listed as a “combat action” so one could certainly infer that it is only meant to be used in combat.

That’s the same section that lists readied and delayed actions, and allowing them to be used outside of combat tends to make a mockery of the whole i initiative system and wreck the game, so if one special combat action is allowed outside of combat I don’t see why others wouldn’t be.

[Darg]

There's nothing stopping a Wizard from casting Mage Armor as soon as he wakes up, unless "Casting a Spell" which is described as an "Action in Combat" can only be undertaken while in combat. But I think that generates a fairly strange world to operate under, since there are many explicitly non-combat spells that last for hours or even days, not to mention Extend and Persist metamagic.

That's backwards. Combat rules are there to limit what can happen in combat, not limit what can happen outside of combat.

Even the book itself makes mention that combat is separate from the rest of the game (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#useFeat):


Some feats, such as item creation feats, are not meant to be used within the framework of combat.

[False God]

That's backwards. Combat rules are there to limit what can happen in combat, not limit what can happen outside of combat.

Even the book itself makes mention that combat is separate from the rest of the game (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#useFeat):

Now it's you that has it backwards, that doesn't say that combat is separate from "the rest of the game". It says that those elements are separate from combat.

And if the combat rules don't limit what happens outside of combat, then one could take Total Defense outside of combat. Since, as you say, the "combat rules" are only there to manage the flow of combat, not to restrict what you can do outside of it. Anything that is explicitly something that happens outside of combat, like item crafting, is called out as such.

Fundamentally, I find it less reasonable to say you can only take Total Defense "in combat", rather than it simply being something you can do at any time. It consumes your standard every single turn for the whole day, which IMO is a rather hefty tradeoff for a fairly minimal buff. I think any player who actually did this would rapidly find themselves in the pickle of being unable to meaningfully take part in non-combat activities, and thus I think the problem is self solving.

[Darg]

Anything that is explicitly something that happens outside of combat, like item crafting, is called out as such.

Right, can you please remind me where it's mentioned gathering information happens out of combat?


And if the combat rules don't limit what happens outside of combat, then one could take Total Defense outside of combat. Since, as you say, the "combat rules" are only there to manage the flow of combat, not to restrict what you can do outside of it.

"You can defend yourself as a standard action." You're in the middle of a 100 ft x 100 ft open meadow, how do you take action to defend yourself?

[Crake]

"You can defend yourself as a standard action." You're in the middle of a 100 ft x 100 ft open meadow, how do you take action to defend yourself?

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

Its a dodge bonus. You focus on incoming attacks and put your effort into avoiding them at the expense of doing anything else. This is also why you lose it while flat footed, because you cant focus on avoiding an attack that you’re not aware of (unless you have something like uncanny dodge)

[False God]

R"You can defend yourself as a standard action." You're in the middle of a 100 ft x 100 ft open meadow, how do you take action to defend yourself?

By...doing so? Raise your shield, scrunch down, cover your face, ready yourself. Are you suggesting that a person can't take defensive actions if there is not an active threat?

[Darg]

By...doing so? Raise your shield, scrunch down, cover your face, ready yourself. Are you suggesting that a person can't take defensive actions if there is not an active threat?

If they don't know what attack is coming how do they know if their action would have an effect? You already have a shield bonus to AC even when flat footed. You could use a tower shield to give yourself cover, but that isn't total defense. How can you be ready for something you don't know is coming? Why cover your face when a stab through an armpit would be just as effective at taking someone out? You already have the "scrunch down" action of going prone, but that only gives bonus AC vs ranged attacks.


Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

And how is that supposed to help you with an attack you have no knowledge of? Regardless of the flat-footed condition and uncanny dodge, if total defense is allowed outside of combat then there's no reason readied actions can't be used outside of combat. Except, that's what the surprise round is for. Even if you have your bow drawn and ready for any creature jumping out, your initiative roll determines who acts first. The barbarian ready to dodge in case something jumps out doesn't get a free action just because they total defensed before combat.

[icefractal]

How is total defense outside of combat any weirder than "total defense IN combat, but there's also an invisible foe you're not aware of"? It either applies to that opponent or doesn't (in 3E it doesn't because it's a dodge bonus), but you can still take the action. It's not targeted against any specific foe.

[Quertus]

One absolutely can take such an action outside of combat, and it looks like



Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

You see it all the time in paintball, dodge ball, water gun fights, laser tag, etc, even when the person taking the action isn't aware of any specific threat. Sometimes when the person taking the action even has their eyes closed (they just got something in their eye, or thought they heard something, or they realize they're in the perfect spot for an ambush, so they go total defense, for example).

You also see it in the middle of an open field when someone afraid of such things thinks they see or hear a stinging insect.

But you rarely see people doing it constantly, because it's tiring. So, this is IMO an example of a good rule:

Now here's where I diverge from the RAW a bit - I've generalized the rules for hustling and running (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/movement/#TOC-Overland-Movement) to include other actions.


Taking more than a single action each round is "hustling", meaning that it will eventually fatigue you. Eventually meaning at least an hour, and longer than that if the party has any healing. So not a big concern in most dungeon environments, but it could be an issue if want to be continually on the defense as you travel (and/or if the other party members are already hustling - you won't be able to keep up with half the move actions unless you're much faster than they are).

Still, in the spawning thread, the issue was much less "taking actions outside of initiative" than "when is initiative rolled". Because



If it's a situation where you know an encounter is about to happen? Then yes - IMC, having the drop is a significant advantage, and the result of "an even fight could turn into an easy fight if you ambush your foes, or a hard fight if they ambush you" is the system working as intended.

The PCs were not only aware of the potential encounter, they were stopped to buff before the encounter.

So this whole thread is more of a red herring than anything actually useful... except as an argument that the monsters could have been using those rounds while the PCs were buffing in Total Defense (or system equivalent), or that the PCs could have spent 1 extra round taking Total Defense actions before opening the door to initiate combat.

Which... while Talakeal tries to make it sound kinda silly, in actuality, not doing so is like knowing you're about to get into a gun fight, and then standing out in the open; ie, not being in a defensive posture before starting a known combat scenario is what's kinda silly, IMO.

(Granted, yes, from a Gamist perspective, this means that the 1st round of combat between 2 sides that are aware of each other and prepared and entrenched will involve more missing, and the combat will be longer, which is probably a suboptimal gameplay experience. And if Talakeal were working with reasonable adults, capable of having actual productive conversations about issues, then this would be a good point to bring up, to have the table have a discussion of how they want the game to go, on the Simulationist/Gamist // Realism&Verisimilitude/Fun&Easy spectrum, with the pros and cons of each option listed. But since that's not the case,)

To answer the question asked, sure, I would not only allow characters to take such an action, but have combat initiative start several rounds before the door is opened / before combat begins, to remove the issue with that "flat-footed" clause. If, you know, any player ever asked to be allowed to do so.

[Darg]

How is total defense outside of combat any weirder than "total defense IN combat, but there's also an invisible foe you're not aware of"? It either applies to that opponent or doesn't (in 3E it doesn't because it's a dodge bonus), but you can still take the action. It's not targeted against any specific foe.

It's weird because it's not meant to be used out of combat. It breaks initiative. In a surprise round only aware characters roll initiative. Unaware characters roll initiative after the surprise round. As total defense lasts 1 round, it's supposed to end at the beginning of their next turn the following round. Except you can't do that because they don't have a turn or initiative yet if they are surprised. The combat rules are meant for combat, not any time you want to exploit a loophole. The whole point of a surprise round is to do exactly what total defense out of combat is trying to accomplish without breaking the rules and action economy.

[False God]

If they don't know what attack is coming how do they know if their action would have an effect?
The "effect" has nothing to do with it. It's a preparedness bonus. You prepare yourself for an attack, and if the attack never comes, you were still prepared. It has nothing to do with a specific effect targeting you. Total Defense does not require you to declare that you are defending yourself from a specific event, much less anything at all! It's not a readied action or a response. It's just a thing. Like taking a fighting stance. You don't need to be facing an opponent to take an offensive posture, why would you need to have an enemy to take a defensive one?

[Darg]

that the PCs could have spent 1 extra round taking Total Defense actions before opening the door to initiate combat.

In this type of scenario, the enemies are surprised. The surprise round is their extra round.


I would not only allow characters to take such an action, but have combat initiative start several rounds before the door is opened / before combat begins, to remove the issue with that "flat-footed" clause. If, you know, any player ever asked to be allowed to do so.

If both sides are aware of each other even with a door between them, it makes sense to roll initiative and start combat. As combat is engaged, there is no need to even contemplate about total defense being usable outside of combat.


The "effect" has nothing to do with it. It's a preparedness bonus. You prepare yourself for an attack, and if the attack never comes, you were still prepared. It has nothing to do with a specific effect targeting you. Total Defense does not require you to declare that you are defending yourself from a specific event, much less anything at all! It's not a readied action or a response. It's just a thing. Like taking a fighting stance. You don't need to be facing an opponent to take an offensive posture, why would you need to have an enemy to take a defensive one?

Because it's gaming the system by using rules where they weren't meant to apply. "Preparedness bonus" is what the surprise round is for. You can make your first action in combat be total defense if you want.

[Quertus]

If both sides are aware of each other even with a door between them, it makes sense to roll initiative and start combat. As combat is engaged, there is no need to even contemplate about total defense being usable outside of combat.

Thank you.

[False God]

Because it's gaming the system by using rules where they weren't meant to apply. "Preparedness bonus" is what the surprise round is for. You can make your first action in combat be total defense if you want.

Now you're back to talking about metagame rules to manage balance. Previously you were saying it relied on an in-world enemy presence.

Which is it? Can you not take Total Defense because there's no active enemy in-world?
Or can you not take Total Defense because the DM hasn't declared combat has begun?

[Talakeal]

The PCs were not only aware of the potential encounter, they were stopped to buff before the encounter.

Not quite, you are conflating two incidents.

The actual discussion was the rogue saying he is hiding 24/7, to which I responded "Well, in that case, all of the NPC's are using total defense 24/7".


If both sides are aware of each other even with a door between them, it makes sense to roll initiative and start combat. As combat is engaged, there is no need to even contemplate about total defense being usable outside of combat.

This is explicitly against the rules of 3.5.

You do not roll initiative until the door is open.


Which... while Talakeal tries to make it sound kinda silly, in actuality, not doing so is like knowing you're about to get into a gun fight, and then standing out in the open; ie, not being in a defensive posture before starting a known combat scenario is what's kinda silly, IMO.

IMO that is simply "not being flat-footed".

Total defense is actively doing whatever it takes to stay safe. It is impossible if you don't know where the attacks are coming from or what their nature is, and its absolutely exhausting to do all day.

For example, a swarm of kobolds stabbing my ankle, a slime trying to envelop me, a giant bringing a club down on me, a lion poucing on me, a barrage of arrows to the face, a gunshot to the chest, a knife in the back, and a dragon breathing fire on my are all possible to defend against, but how exactly you do it is completely different.

[Darg]

This is explicitly against the rules of 3.5.

You do not roll initiative until the door is open.


If each side becomes aware of the other but cannot interact immediately, track time in rounds, giving both sides the same amount of time in full rounds, until the two sides can begin to interact.

The DMG disagrees with your assessment. You still become bound by the rules of combat. And "explicitly" is a little harsh. At no time do the rules tell you to never roll initiative unless two parties interact.

[Crake]

If they don't know what attack is coming how do they know if their action would have an effect?

We have already established that total defense grants you a dodge bonus to AC which is lost when flat footed, ie, before you have a chance to act in initiative, so the only people who benefit from total defense before combat starts is people who retain their dex to AC while flat footed like rogues and barbarians with uncanny dodge.

[Darg]

We have already established that total defense grants you a dodge bonus to AC which is lost when flat footed, ie, before you have a chance to act in initiative, so the only people who benefit from total defense before combat starts is people who retain their dex to AC while flat footed like rogues and barbarians with uncanny dodge.

It doesn't make sense to allow the total defense action to be taken unless they are aware of enemies. If they are just doing it all day to metagame it breaks the surprise round and action economy if they are caught surprised. You can't just say they weren't caught surprised either because then everyone would just total defense to never suffer a surprise round.

[False God]

It doesn't make sense to allow the total defense action to be taken unless they are aware of enemies. If they are just doing it all day to metagame it breaks the surprise round and action economy if they are caught surprised. You can't just say they weren't caught surprised either because then everyone would just total defense to never suffer a surprise round.

So? Who cares.

They literally wasted their ability to do anything at all for the entire day to avoid maybe being surprised.

[Quertus]

Not quite, you are conflating two incidents.

The actual discussion was the rogue saying he is hiding 24/7, to which I responded "Well, in that case, all of the NPC's are using total defense 24/7".

I'm ignoring that one, because the idea of all the NPCs in the world bopping around like a bunch of bobblehead windsocks in a hurricane 24/7 is just too silly. Even for me. :smallamused:

Thus, I'm only crediting the conversation about taking total defense before the door as something I can discuss seriously.

As for the other thing, I can wear dark clothes, paint my skin black, take off my glasses... ****.

I can wear dark clothes, paint my skin black, stay out of lit areas, and skulk through the night... as stealthily as a clumsy viking can manage. :smallsigh:

Or i can wear light clothes with reflective patches, stick to lit areas as much as possible, scuff my feet and whistle as I walk, to try to make sure I'm seen.

They're clearly two very different modes of travel, and I can keep both up all night... er... I could keep either up for hours.

But that has little to do with 3e RAW, or a nation of windmill bobbleheads, so I'm uncertain if it's actually germane to this thread.

[Darg]

So? Who cares.

They literally wasted their ability to do anything at all for the entire day to avoid maybe being surprised.

Sometimes, you need to protect your players from themselves.

[False God]

Sometimes, you need to protect your players from themselves.

Eh. I've got better things to worry about than Bob doing nothing useful all day with +4 AC.

[Crake]

Eh. I've got better things to worry about than Bob doing nothing useful all day with +4 AC.

Yeah, getting +4 AC until your first action ONLY IF you have uncanny dodge is hardly breaking the action economy.

I also doubt people would be doing it literally all day every day, more like “we’re in a dungeon/in a dark forest/in the underdark, Im gonna be moving slowly and keeping on my toes in case of an ambush” seems totally fine and in character to me. The enemies doing the ambushing would also be able to see them doing that and just focus their attacks on someone else instead. Or just hit them with something that ignores AC, like a will save spell, and just ignore the whole thing to begin with.

[Talakeal]

The DMG disagrees with your assessment. You still become bound by the rules of combat. And "explicitly" is a little harsh. At no time do the rules tell you to never roll initiative unless two parties interact.

Both the DMG and the PHB say that the battle has not started and that you do not roll initiative until the door is opened.

The DMG does, however, say to start measuring actions in rounds as soon as either side becomes aware of the other.

[Crake]

Both the DMG and the PHB say that the battle has not started and that you do not roll initiative until the door is opened.

But the DMG does, however, say to start measuring actions in rounds as soon as either side becomes aware of one another.

Combat starts once both sides are aware of one another, or when one side takes action to initiate a surprise round, the door is literally irrelevant to the scenario

Edit: allow me to clarify. Combat starts once both sides are aware AND HOSTILE to one another. The door being open or closed may be the deciding factor in whether the sides consider each other hostile or not, so i guess its not completely irrelevant.

[Talakeal]

The examples all use opening the door as the signal for the moment that initiative is rolled and the battle started, not the moment the groups become aware of one another.

Now, I agree that this seems a bit odd given how many forms of attack can bypass a closed door and how many fights don't take place in rooms which are separated by doors, but those are the examples we have.

[Daisy]

Would you allow a character to permanently be holding an action to shoot the first enemy they see? How would that work with initiative and surprise when they stumbled around a corner and saw a dozen orcs? And how is that ruling different to one on permanently taking total defence?

Game balance is more important than realism. I mean, we're playing a game with pretend elves for goodness sake (to quote a certain well-known GM). Breaking the initiative and surprise round rules just because a player can't cope with the idea someone might get the drop on them isn't a good move.

[icefractal]

Game balance is more important than realism. I mean, we're playing a game with pretend elves for goodness sake (to quote a certain well-known GM). Breaking the initiative and surprise round rules just because a player can't cope with the idea someone might get the drop on them isn't a good move.Not really agreed, for two reasons -

First, while balance is a positive thing for a game to have, it's not the only thing, and (IMO) it's not the highest priority thing either. Having a consistent-feeling world, enabling creativity / invention, creating interesting situations - those are all things I'd take over balance if I had to pick. A game whose only asset is balance is competing with hundreds of board, card and video games which offer tight, well-balanced gameplay with a lot less prep work required. I'm not saying that this specific thing (total defense) is vital to any of those goals, but as an overall point - no, game balance is not inherently more important than realism.

Second - what the heck is with all this concern over +4 AC? In 3.x, "total defense all the time" is not even in the top 100 ways the game can become seriously unbalanced. I would say that "being unable to do other things (including keeping active watch, arguably more important for preventing surprise), requiring 2x the speed to keep up with the rest of the party when they're hustling, and being very conspicuous in some situations" is a pretty significant price to pay for that +4 AC (which you also need Uncanny Dodge or similar to benefit from).

[Daisy]

Not really agreed, for two reasons -

First, while balance is a positive thing for a game to have, it's not the only thing, and (IMO) it's not the highest priority thing either. Having a consistent-feeling world, enabling creativity / invention, creating interesting situations - those are all things I'd take over balance if I had to pick. A game whose only asset is balance is competing with hundreds of board, card and video games which offer tight, well-balanced gameplay with a lot less prep work required. I'm not saying that this specific thing (total defense) is vital to any of those goals, but as an overall point - no, game balance is not inherently more important than realism.

I guess that depends on your table. Some games are RP-heavy, others much more of a tactical slug-fest of pure combat. Both are fine of course, it's not necessarily one-size-fits-all. So I guess I agree with you on this.


Second - what the heck is with all this concern over +4 AC? In 3.x, "total defense all the time" is not even in the top 100 ways the game can become seriously unbalanced. I would say that "being unable to do other things (including keeping active watch, arguably more important for preventing surprise), requiring 2x the speed to keep up with the rest of the party when they're hustling, and being very conspicuous in some situations" is a pretty significant price to pay for that +4 AC (which you also need Uncanny Dodge or similar to benefit from).

It's more about the precedent it sets. If players think they can overcome such core tactical play as arranging ambushes, etc. then where does it end? For example:


A player with a tower shield decides to get permanent total cover, at least until they act in combat. Bye-bye surprise crossbow ambush.
As mentioned before, a player permanently holds an action to shoot an enemy as soon as they see them. As held actions interrupt before the action triggering it, the player always gets their shot in first, even if surprised. Perfect for distracting spellcasters.

Of course the real acid-test is simple: how would the players react if the enemy tried this on them? Planning to ambush the orc prisoner transport? "Oh dear, you get a surprise round but they are all hiding behind their tower shields and so all your arrows miss." You'd get lynched!

[Darg]

It's more about the precedent it sets. If players think they can overcome such core tactical play as arranging ambushes, etc. then where does it end? For example:


A player with a tower shield decides to get permanent total cover, at least until they act in combat. Bye-bye surprise crossbow ambush.
As mentioned before, a player permanently holds an action to shoot an enemy as soon as they see them. As held actions interrupt before the action triggering it, the player always gets their shot in first, even if surprised. Perfect for distracting spellcasters.

Of course the real acid-test is simple: how would the players react if the enemy tried this on them? Planning to ambush the orc prisoner transport? "Oh dear, you get a surprise round but they are all hiding behind their tower shields and so all your arrows miss." You'd get lynched!

This is exactly it. It's fine for players to be creative, but exploitative behavior being allowed just leads to bad tastes in everyone's mouths when it goes too far and had to be reined in after the fact. Just like any RAW discussion ever, if you are permissive for one thing it can open a can of worms best left unopened. This is especially so when the logic used to allow one thing is used to argue for another. Consistency is simply better for the game. You don't have initiative; you can't use special initiative actions. You aren't in combat; you can't exploit combat rules to your benefit because you already have the freedom to do whatever you want if the DM allows it. There's no need apply rules to break them.

And really, allowing total defense all day is not fun for anyone. It's either mandatory or wasted potential. They might be giddy at the start to get to do something new, but eventually they'll just kick themselves if they forget or a DM takes advantage of their downed guard or if they realize they are just wasting their ability to play the game.


I also doubt people would be doing it literally all day every day, more like “we’re in a dungeon/in a dark forest/in the underdark, Im gonna be moving slowly and keeping on my toes in case of an ambush” seems totally fine and in character to me. The enemies doing the ambushing would also be able to see them doing that and just focus their attacks on someone else instead. Or just hit them with something that ignores AC, like a will save spell, and just ignore the whole thing to begin with.

What, you think anyone not taking the total defense option isn't "walking slowly and staying on their toes"? That the party being aware of the enemy on the other side of the door is going to open it without standing at the ready? That they'll just walk through the door nonchalantly and without a care? No, the characters are already doing that. Total defense is giving up attacks and the ability to threaten to better protect yourself because you aren't exchanging blows. The thing is, everyone already has that benefit at the start of combat and you now have to come up with something extremely absurd to accommodate the action.

[loky1109]

What, you think anyone not taking the total defense option isn't "walking slowly and staying on their toes"?.
It's hide and spot without penalty, not +AC.


That the party being aware of the enemy on the other side of the door is going to open it without standing at the ready?
That's no surprise round.

[Eladrinblade]

It doesn't make sense to allow the total defense action to be taken unless they are aware of enemies.

Yes it does. It takes a standard action. It means they are standing or walking while being ready to dodge at an instants notice. If they are jogging or running or sprinting, they can't do it, because they don't have a standard action left to do it with. Likewise with any other activity.

Readied actions don't make sense out of combat, however I think the dmg or phb mention giving an initiative bonus if a character is actively waiting on a particular thing and then that thing happens. Like, I put an arrow to the string of my bow and point it at the door, ready for an enemy to come through, then an enemy does so they get +2 or +4 or something.

There should be limits to both of these of course, because nobody can maintain focus forever.

[Logalmier]

I guess that depends on your table. Some games are RP-heavy, others much more of a tactical slug-fest of pure combat. Both are fine of course, it's not necessarily one-size-fits-all. So I guess I agree with you on this.



It's more about the precedent it sets. If players think they can overcome such core tactical play as arranging ambushes, etc. then where does it end? For example:


A player with a tower shield decides to get permanent total cover, at least until they act in combat. Bye-bye surprise crossbow ambush.
As mentioned before, a player permanently holds an action to shoot an enemy as soon as they see them. As held actions interrupt before the action triggering it, the player always gets their shot in first, even if surprised. Perfect for distracting spellcasters.

Of course the real acid-test is simple: how would the players react if the enemy tried this on them? Planning to ambush the orc prisoner transport? "Oh dear, you get a surprise round but they are all hiding behind their tower shields and so all your arrows miss." You'd get lynched!

Walking around all day with a tower shield up literally 24/7 is a silly mental image, but even sillier and immersion-breaking would be saying that you physically cannot hide behind a shield unless engaged in active combat. Both rulings here (perma-cover vs physically-can't), when abused and taken to an extreme, result in silly, degenerate gameplay. RAW, I don't see anything prohibiting using a tower shield outside of combat. RAI, it's part of the gentleman's agreement that PCs shouldn't act like they have meta-knowledge of how to manipulate game exploits for dumb-but-legal advantages. As for readied actions, the 3.5 DMG specifically prohibits readied actions outside of combat on page 26: "Don't allow the players to use the ready action outside combat." I don't believe that specific prohibition was ever ported to Pathfinder however, although it is implied.

Also worth noting that the Pathfinder version of tower shields are significantly less dumb in this instance than their 3.5 counterpart, providing in exchange for a standard action total cover only for attacks which would pass through a single designated edge of your square.

[Quertus]

Would you allow a character to permanently be holding an action to shoot the first enemy they see? How would that work with initiative and surprise when they stumbled around a corner and saw a dozen orcs? And how is that ruling different to one on permanently taking total defence?

They can't stumble round a corner if they're holding an action, as it requires a full-round action to do so.


Game balance is more important than realism.

Spoken like a true Gamist. I, as a Simulationist, disagree. Things making sense is more important than things being balanced, as things making sense is a requirement for intelligence and intelligent action.

[Crake]

Would you allow a character to permanently be holding an action to shoot the first enemy they see? How would that work with initiative and surprise when they stumbled around a corner and saw a dozen orcs? And how is that ruling different to one on permanently taking total defence?

Its different because delay and ready actions are defined as “special initiative actions” and require initiative to be usable. Total defense is not, and does not

[Talakeal]

I think a lot of the disagreement comes from what total defense actually represents.

A lot of people are saying it just means "being on your toes, with your shield out, and on the ready for combat" which I just take to be normal behavior in a dangerous situation like a battlefield or a dungeon.

For me, total defense is actively attempting to mitigate damage however you can, (see examples above) and becomes incoherent when used against some sort of generalized threat which you don't know the nature of, as anything that I can imagine you doing to mitigate one threat will either do nothing or actively make the situation worse against other threats.

E.g. throwing yourself to the ground with your hands over your head will help out against a burst of gunfire, but will be a pretty bad move to avoid being engulfed by a swarm of carnivorous rats. On the other hand, jumping up and dangling from the rafters is a pretty good move to avoid being enfulged by a swarm of carnivorous rats, but is a pretty bad idea if you want to survive a burst of gunfire.


Its different because delay and ready actions are defined as “special initiative actions” and require initiative to be usable. Total defense is not, and does not

But it is defined as a "special combat action". So if one can infer that initiative is a prerequisite for a "special initiative action" (and I think it should), then it would logically follow that combat is also a prerequisite for a "special combat action".

[Crake]

But it is defined as a "special combat action". So if one can infer that initiative is a prerequisite for a "special initiative action" (and I think it should), then it would logically follow that combat is also a prerequisite for a "special combat action".

Actually, its not. Its listed as a standard action, under the heading “Actions in combat”, along with attacking and casting a spell, and moving. None of those things are limited to combat, that section is merely explaining how they function while in combat, and none of these things are described as combat specific or exclusive.

[icefractal]

For me, total defense is actively attempting to mitigate damage however you can, (see examples above) and becomes incoherent when used against some sort of generalized threat which you don't know the nature of, as anything that I can imagine you doing to mitigate one threat will either do nothing or actively make the situation worse against other threats.

E.g. throwing yourself to the ground with your hands over your head will help out against a burst of gunfire, but will be a pretty bad move to avoid being engulfed by a swarm of carnivorous rats. On the other hand, jumping up and dangling from the rafters is a pretty good move to avoid being enfulged by a swarm of carnivorous rats, but is a pretty bad idea if you want to survive a burst of gunfire.The issue though, is that's not how it works in combat:
Bob is facing a cloaked figure armed with a pair of pistols. He takes total defense.
The cloaked figure drops the pistols and summons rats instead. Bob's total defense still applies.

Now if total defense was more like 3E Dodge, where you had to declare a target you're defending from, then it would make sense you can't do it out of combat. But as-is, I don't see how "total defense against an unspecified threat" makes any less sense than "total defense against the wrong threat, but it still applies".

[Crake]

The issue though, is that's not how it works in combat:
Bob is facing a cloaked figure armed with a pair of pistols. He takes total defense.
The cloaked figure drops the pistols and summons rats instead. Bob's total defense still applies.

Now if total defense was more like 3E Dodge, where you had to declare a target you're defending from, then it would make sense you can't do it out of combat. But as-is, I don't see how "total defense against an unspecified threat" makes any less sense than "total defense against the wrong threat, but it still applies".

Right, total defense is in effect forgoing your action to do ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE, as appropriate to the situation, though jumping and hanging from the rafters is technically not an option, as +4 AC vs swarms is irrelevant, since they auto hit

[Talakeal]

Right, total defense is in effect forgoing your action to do ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE, as appropriate to the situation, though jumping and hanging from the rafters is technically not an option, as +4 AC vs swarms is irrelevant, since they auto hit

+1 to this.

[Daisy]

So let me get this straight. If total defence outside of combat is OK, everyone who has Uncanny Dodge, PCs and enemies, is always in it. Why wouldn't you be?


"It means you're moving slowly" isn't an answer. Moving slowly outside of combat rarely matters.
"You look silly" doesn't matter. Gaming the system in such a way in order to gain a minor benefit is typically done by those not interested in the RP-side of D&D.
"You give up all your standard actions all day" isn't an answer. Stopping for one round occasionally to do something else is only going to matter if the enemy chooses that exact moment to attack, and even the most confrontational DM shouldn't stoop to that level (it would mean the enemy were constantly watching the character all day and were ready to leap into action the instant they dropped their guard).


You'd be better off just saying, "My house-rule is that Uncanny Dodge grants you +4 Dodge bonus to AC whilst flat-footed" and be done with it. Which is fine if you want to do that.

[Crake]

So let me get this straight. If total defence outside of combat is OK, everyone who has Uncanny Dodge, PCs and enemies, is always in it. Why wouldn't you be?


"It means you're moving slowly" isn't an answer. Moving slowly outside of combat rarely matters.
"You look silly" doesn't matter. Gaming the system in such a way in order to gain a minor benefit is typically done by those not interested in the RP-side of D&D.
"You give up all your standard actions all day" isn't an answer. Stopping for one round occasionally to do something else is only going to matter if the enemy chooses that exact moment to attack, and even the most confrontational DM shouldn't stoop to that level (it would mean the enemy were constantly watching the character all day and were ready to leap into action the instant they dropped their guard).


You'd be better off just saying, "My house-rule is that Uncanny Dodge grants you +4 Dodge bonus to AC whilst flat-footed" and be done with it. Which is fine if you want to do that.

Because it would be just as physically and mentally exhausting as doing any other standard action constantly for 16 hours a day, and would fatigue you?

Theres also times when you might have been caught flat footed specifically WHILE doing something else

[Daisy]

Because it would be just as physically and mentally exhausting as doing any other standard action constantly for 16 hours a day, and would fatigue you?

Indeed it would, as would concentrating for 16 hours straight, but I've seen players argue that they're maintaining a concentration spell all day. As for fatigue, those same players would argue there's nothing in the rules that says it fatigues you. So it seem to comes down to a given DMs view on what is reasonable.

I think this is boiling down to a RAW vs RAI discussion (as so many things in 3.5 do), and I don't tend to get involved in them as they can rarely be resolved. Like with so many things, some DMs will allow this, some will not. I fall into the "nope" category.

[TIPOT]

Indeed it would, as would concentrating for 16 hours straight, but I've seen players argue that they're maintaining a concentration spell all day. As for fatigue, those same players would argue there's nothing in the rules that says it fatigues you. So it seem to comes down to a given DMs view on what is reasonable.

I think this is boiling down to a RAW vs RAI discussion (as so many things in 3.5 do), and I don't tend to get involved in them as they can rarely be resolved. Like with so many things, some DMs will allow this, some will not. I fall into the "nope" category.

You'd count as hustling if you're moving while taking the total defence action I think?

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#modesofMovement
"A character moving his or her speed twice in a single round, or moving that speed in the same round that he or she performs a standard action or another move action is hustling when he or she moves."

So after an hour you start taking penalties

[ciopo]

that fatiqued apply only when doing overland travel, not local time/tactical time.

Otherwise, you *would* be fatiqued 1 hour after waking up, be it traveling or shopping or being in the dungeon, no matter what you did or didn't do, unless you're assuming "we do nothing 3 seconds out of every 6"? No matter how it goes, people will be "doing stuff" with their time.

It's not like the default assumption is that adventurers are picking their noses while exploring a dungeon (in local/narrative time), the declaration of intent "I keep my eyes out for ambushes" being resolved as a circumstance bonus to perception checks or as a dodge bonus to AC ( but valid only with uncanny dodge) makes no difference on that axis.

Of course, while the lookout with uncanny dodge "keeps an eye out for ambushes" (total defense), he's not looting the body or searching the desk or disarming the trap etcetera.... but that's no different from the barbarian picking his nose while the rogue disarms the trap. "skip action" and "standard action" are equivalent in resolution, and neither causes fatique. Because otherwise you'd be fatiqued 1 hour after breakfast no matter what you did with your time :P

the munchkin in me goes "since you want to use overland movement rules when not doing overland movement, I shall henceforth move 1 less feet per round than my max movement, theren I'm now never fatiqued, since I'm not moving my movement speed"

[Eladrinblade]

So let me get this straight. If total defence outside of combat is OK, everyone who has Uncanny Dodge, PCs and enemies, is always in it. Why wouldn't you be?

Pretty much. As long as they have a standard action to devote to nothing else, sure. I would start making them take concentration checks if they try to abuse it, though.

[Darg]

Pretty much. As long as they have a standard action to devote to nothing else, sure. I would start making them take concentration checks if they try to abuse it, though.

Except if you're nerfing it, why not just flat out say "no." It already plays hijinks with the surprise round by effectively lasting 2 rounds instead of the intended 1. The only actual gameplay difference of saying no is that a character is simply slightly more vulnerable until their first turn as they are meant to be regardless of how prepared you are going into combat. If you get the highest initiative roll and you aren't surprised, it literally mimics the exact effect players want from using it out of combat.

[Eladrinblade]

Except if you're nerfing it, why not just flat out say "no."

Because there's no reason to. The rules allow the rogue or barbarian to choose "total defense" and walk down the trap-filled hallway and I'm not taking that away from them.

[loky1109]

I have solution. Traps should have own initiative.

[Jay R]

1. No. The rules are clear:


1. Each combatant starts out flat-footed. Once a combatant acts, he or she is no longer flat-footed.
After that, you cannot take an action until your initiative comes up.

There are a few rules that override this (like Uncanny Dodge), but they explicitly say so. This is a standard action, and you cannot take a standard action in combat until your initiative comes up.

2. If you allowed PCs to take Total Defense all day long, then all the monsters will, too, and the surprise round cannot exist. You would also then have the ludicrous situation that the PCs are less focused on defending in combat than they are out of combat.

3. Am I the only one here who has ever been in a fight?

When you take total defense, you are spending all your focus watching your known enemies for any movement towards you.

You aren't walking down a road.
You aren't talking to a group.
You aren't trying to solve the riddle.
You aren't bargaining with a merchant.
You aren't tracking.
You aren't opening the door.
You aren't searching for traps.
You aren't eating a meal.
You aren't flirting with the tavern waitress.

You are absolutely focused on your enemies, and nothing else. That requires having, well, enemies.

[Eladrinblade]

You aren't trying to solve the riddle.
You aren't bargaining with a merchant.
You aren't tracking.
You aren't searching for traps.
You aren't eating a meal.
You aren't flirting with the tavern waitress.

Look at all those standard actions.

[icefractal]

When you take total defense, you are spending all your focus watching your known enemies for any movement towards you.Except (as I said a few posts ago, and Talakeal ... agreed with? Or didn't? It's unclear), that's not how Total Defense in 3.x works.

Situation: Bob is facing three Ogres.
Bob's Action: Total Defense
Enemy Action: A dragon who Bob had no idea was nearby busts in through the ceiling and attacks Bob. Total Defense applies.

[Crake]

that fatiqued apply only when doing overland travel, not local time/tactical time.

Otherwise, you *would* be fatiqued 1 hour after waking up, be it traveling or shopping or being in the dungeon, no matter what you did or didn't do, unless you're assuming "we do nothing 3 seconds out of every 6"? No matter how it goes, people will be "doing stuff" with their time.

It's not like the default assumption is that adventurers are picking their noses while exploring a dungeon (in local/narrative time), the declaration of intent "I keep my eyes out for ambushes" being resolved as a circumstance bonus to perception checks or as a dodge bonus to AC ( but valid only with uncanny dodge) makes no difference on that axis.

Of course, while the lookout with uncanny dodge "keeps an eye out for ambushes" (total defense), he's not looting the body or searching the desk or disarming the trap etcetera.... but that's no different from the barbarian picking his nose while the rogue disarms the trap. "skip action" and "standard action" are equivalent in resolution, and neither causes fatique. Because otherwise you'd be fatiqued 1 hour after breakfast no matter what you did with your time :P

the munchkin in me goes "since you want to use overland movement rules when not doing overland movement, I shall henceforth move 1 less feet per round than my max movement, theren I'm now never fatiqued, since I'm not moving my movement speed"

Its not so much about using your standard vs not, its about the stress level involved. Being literally tense all day and ready to dive for cover is physically and mentally stressful. Theres a reason why the game defines resting as needing to do “light activity” at most, and I would say keeping tense, on your toes, and wary does not count as light activity.

[Darg]

Because there's no reason to. The rules allow the rogue or barbarian to choose "total defense" and walk down the trap-filled hallway and I'm not taking that away from them.

That's like saying the rules allow the barbarian with 28 Str to carry 1,200 lbs of weapons/crap on their person without impeding them other than it being a heavy load. You forget the reality of the setting also imposes limitations on the characters. That barbarian crawling through a hole with 120 scythes isn't going anywhere even if the "rules" don't say they can't.

Technically, the rules more heavily favor combat rules staying in combat because that's literally what they are classified as. You don't use the overland travel rules in combat, why would you use the combat rules during overland travel or any other time besides combat?


Another place where the rules prefer you to keep combat rules in combat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#movingAroundInSquares).

[Eladrinblade]

That's like saying the rules allow the barbarian with 28 Str to carry 1,200 lbs of weapons/crap on their person without impeding them other than it being a heavy load. You forget the reality of the setting also imposes limitations on the characters. That barbarian crawling through a hole with 120 scythes isn't going anywhere even if the "rules" don't say they can't.

Technically, the rules more heavily favor combat rules staying in combat because that's literally what they are classified as. You don't use the overland travel rules in combat, why would you use the combat rules during overland travel or any other time besides combat?[/URL].

Neither of those is like saying a rogue or barbarian can use total defense outside of combat. You're reaching.

[Jay R]

Except (as I said a few posts ago, and Talakeal ... agreed with? Or didn't? It's unclear), that's not how Total Defense in 3.x works.

Situation: Bob is facing three Ogres.
Bob's Action: Total Defense
Enemy Action: A dragon who Bob had no idea was nearby busts in through the ceiling and attacks Bob. Total Defense applies.

Agreed. First there must be a combat situation, then Bob can take Total Defense as an action when it's his initiative, just as you said.

[rel]

I have solution. Traps should have own initiative.
Explicitly putting traps into the combat minigame can work quite well.
I haven't found a general approach that works for all traps yet, but I've run some pretty good encounters using this paradigm.

[ciopo]

Agreed. First there must be a combat situation, then Bob can take Total Defense as an action when it's his initiative, just as you said.
Well, funnily enough, the "solution" I'd come up with, if it really mattered that much to me, would be to ask to be put into tactical time at the start of the dungeon, and go "by rounds" start to finish, no matter if creatures/hostiles are/aren't there.

It loops back to spell durations for me. Keeping in mind I absolutely loathe 5-minutes-adventuring-day, there's a giant discrepancy between how long it takes to explore a dungeon in tactical time and how long it takes to explore a dungeon in narrative time. Start to finish, a dungeon? Usually it takes one-two hours, give or take. Fairly, "searching a room" takes minutes. But that "minutes" is nebolous, and I find it's fair to have spells with duration in minutes/level to tick out before the next encounter (modulo level). but 10 minutes/level? Outside of circumstances, these last the whole dungeon/floor (I've seen it's fairly common that "going down a level" takes "hours").

Have you ever cast a round/level buff, thinking an encounter would be difficult, to then smash it apart and you're left hanging there with almost the whole duration? never been tempted to "rush ahead"? I know I am, I know this happens most often with haste for me, because haste facilitates rushing ahead, and, unsurprisingly, if you do that you may suddenly find out just how artificial it is when "hours" are needed to explore.

The takeaway, for me: if your "balancing" point is "sure, you can do that, but you'll be fatiqued after one hour", my counterpoint would be "Ok, can we please use rounds start to finish, so I know when I have to stop for a quick nap/ using a little cure to remove the fatique?"

Personally, I don't want to be on turn-time all the time ( in dungeons), tho there is some appeal to that, but then it's more of a dungeon crawler and less of a rpg experience


Its not so much about using your standard vs not, its about the stress level involved. Being literally tense all day and ready to dive for cover is physically and mentally stressful. Theres a reason why the game defines resting as needing to do “light activity” at most, and I would say keeping tense, on your toes, and wary does not count as light activity.
Eh, I agree from a simulationist point of view, but from that point of view 1 hour of dungeon exploration is "tense and intense" all the same, no matter what actual activity you're doing.

My internal metric for "is this stressful" when related to ingame activities is "could I take 10 when doing something, right then?"

Because someone with a better flair for descriptions than me could as easily describe "the look" of someone using total defense as being attentive but relaxed. And as (you?) said it'd need uncanny dodge to works against surprise enemies anyway, which neatly "solves" the quirkiness of it.


Of course, I recognize "it's silly", and metagamey, but consider this, in my opinion, rather common situation :

adventurer party has to travel from X to Y, they're new players or old players pretending to be still inexpert adventurers. None of them say they are keeping a lookout while traveling, as a result of that, they get surprise-ambushed.

Perhabs their expectation was that there would be some narrative cue to the possibility of an ambush "you're about to enter a ravine, this looks like a good spot for an ambush", perhabs they missed the cue, perhabs they thought they would be asked to roll perception when it was relevant to do so. The "why" is secondary to being ambushed, specifically, being ambushed because they didn't tick the checkbox "be on the lookout"

from that day henceforth, one or more of those players will declare "and we will keep an eye out for ambushes", as to not be caught by surprise. Fairly common learning experience, right?



Perception is a move-action equivalent, if you travel while keeping an eye out for ambushed, you're hustling.

let's get back to local time/narrative time: party is exploring a dungeon. Would you say it's fair/correct/appropriate that one (or more ) of the characters is doing the role of "lookout" : keeping an eye out?
The only mechanical difference between spot/perception and total defense is that the former is a move action and the latter is a standard action when within the bounds of tactical time. I.e., no difference at all in narrative time if the lookout is "moving with the party and keeping his attention high to notice stuff" and the twitchy rogue is "moving with the party and ready to roll away at a moment notice", they're both hustling... which by the rules does not cause fatique, outside of overland travel


I mean, there are tables where it's necessary to do absolute tedium of "I check for traps" every N seconds. I don't see how "I'm ready to dodge away" is any different from that or any other "stressfull" local/narrative actions. It's neatly "solved" by uncanny dodge anyway!

[icefractal]

Agreed. First there must be a combat situation, then Bob can take Total Defense as an action when it's his initiative, just as you said.I don't think you can say "agreed" when we're coming to opposite conclusions.

Are you really saying that between these two cases:
A) While Bob is fighting a pair of orcs, a drow he was completely unaware of jumps out of the shadows and stabs him.
B) While Bob is trying to keep his guard up and not distracted by fighting, a drow he was completely unaware of jumps out of the shadows and stabs him.

A is the one that's better for defense? That Bob (assuming he has Uncanny Dodge) will be more able to raise a defense against an attacker he's completely unaware of if and only if somebody else is trying to stab him? Because that seems like Looney Tunes logic to me. :smallconfused:


Some games have "combat" as essentially a whole separate world, a world that things can't necessarily cross in/out of, and doesn't necessarily work the same in any way. As separate as the combat vs overworld modes in a classic JRPG. That's not something I like. I'll put up with it if the system is otherwise good, but I have very negative desire to import that into D&D. Combat should occur in the same world as non-combat, with reality still working the same way.

[Crake]

My internal metric for "is this stressful" when related to ingame activities is "could I take 10 when doing something, right then?"

This is clearly not a good metric, considering just regular hustling is stressful enough to create fatigue, but wouldnt, on its own, disqualify from taking 10.

Perhaps stressful isnt the best word, since its got multiple different meanings that people are conflating with one another, heavy vs light activity might be better to use.

[ciopo]

This is clearly not a good metric, considering just regular hustling is stressful enough to create fatigue, but wouldnt, on its own, disqualify from taking 10.

Perhaps stressful isnt the best word, since its got multiple different meanings that people are conflating with one another, heavy vs light activity might be better to use.

Pedantic correction: regular hustling creates fatique only if you travel more than 3 miles in one hour. in tactical and local time, it esplicitly says it doesn't cause fatique.

Which is (kind of) my point, I don't see standing watch/checking for traps/taking the defined total defense action as being meaningfully different from each other when determining if they are light or heavy activities. If they're heavy, they're all heavy, if they're light, they're all light, but regardless of that mechanically, doing heavy activity prevents you from resting, it doesn't cause you to become fatiqued.

* I'm currently only looking at the movement rules, since that's what has been brought up in thread, if there are better defined rules about what causes fatique, I'd happily change opinion on the matter. I *do* recognize "always taking total defense" is silly/morphing/degenerate/what-have-you , I also don't see a problem with a player declaring they're taking a total defense action before kicking down a door, because in the mind eye "being ready to duck away if it explodes in my face" sounds reasonable to me.

edit: I understand the reason for "no" is to disallow the (degenerate) conclusion when taken to the (logical) extreme: being in total defense all the time someone isn't doing anything else, which is fair on a table level, but for the rules, I really don't see much of a difference between actions, not enough to classify "this causes fatique" versus "this does not causes fatique", because we lack the definition for those.
I would venture, if I had to make a ruling on that, that anything you do "weapon in hand" is heavy activity, even if you aren't using said weapon. That initiative has or hasn't been rolled have no bearing onto whether I'm allowed to be ready to roll away from a sudden danger or not? It's governed by uncanny dodge anyway, so total defense out of combat is fine, because it "does nothing" unless you're already the kind of character allowed to react to the unexpected.

After all, you're allowed the (pathfinder) dodge bonus from the dodge talent, if you have uncanny dodge, so, I don't see a difference between that and total defense.
Makes for interesting brain thoughts about how pathfinder dodge feat and 3.5 dodge feat differs. 3.5 rogue have to see one enemy to be allowed to dodge against it, pathfinder rogue "just dodge, man". is the pathfinder rogue fatiqued after 1 hour because he "has" a dodge bonus "from something"? what if I have some other source of dodge bonus? do they fatique me, because I'm always ready to dodge out of the way of unexpected danger? After all, if I'm understanding correctly, you (Crake) are putting the onus of total defense on the fact that being ready to roll away from danger at any moment is exhausting both mentally and phisically ( which I agree with you, mind you, on a "it would be like that in real life" point of view ). But if that's taken as a fact, to me it's equally sensible that all other dodge bonuses have that same property, no? If you can think of descriptive reasons because dodge bonus A does not cause fatique, why can't we have some other descriptive reasons such that dodge bonus B also does not cause fatique?

[loky1109]

"we will keep an eye out for ambushes" means you'll not have -5 on Spot check/+5 on Listen DC (unification, yeah! (no)) for distraction. Not, you use move action every round.

[Jay R]

I don't think you can say "agreed" when we're coming to opposite conclusions.

Are you really saying that between these two cases:
A) While Bob is fighting a pair of orcs, a drow he was completely unaware of jumps out of the shadows and stabs him.
B) While Bob is trying to keep his guard up and not distracted by fighting, a drow he was completely unaware of jumps out of the shadows and stabs him.

A is the one that's better for defense? That Bob (assuming he has Uncanny Dodge) will be more able to raise a defense against an attacker he's completely unaware of if and only if somebody else is trying to stab him? Because that seems like Looney Tunes logic to me. :smallconfused:


Yes, of course. Absolutely. You can say "I try to keep my guard up" all you want when there are no threats, but you will never be as focused on blocking shots as you are in combat.

"Distracted by fighting" does not mean "distracted from fighting". Besides, Total Defense is deciding not to be distracted by fighting. It's deliberately choosing not to distract yourself by throwing blows. It means an absolute concentration on blocking or dodging all potential threats, to the exclusion of any other activity.

Walking down a hallway, opening a door, searching for traps, talking to others about the plans, deciding which hallway to take, making any Spot check other than to see nearby foes, and any other activity while out of combat are all inconsistent with Total Defense. Defending yourself from the orcs you see while watching out for any other possible threats, while not even trying to hit back, is exactly what Total Defense means.

In an SCA melee, I can't even hold my sword and shield in a ready position for 5 minutes at a time. Whenever there's a break in the action, I lower them and/or rest my shield on my leg. I certainly couldn't hold weapons at the ready all day long.

Have you ever actually been in a melee? Going on Total Defense absolutely means watching the foes you know about and looking out for others.

[ciopo]

"we will keep an eye out for ambushes" means you'll not have -5 on Spot check/+5 on Listen DC (unification, yeah! (no)) for distraction. Not, you use move action every round.
Are you sure you want to give me "keeping an eye out is a free/no action"? Sweet, I'm going to be on lookout for ambushes all the time now! (On top of whatever other activied I have to be doing)

I mean, I feel you're opposing the point of view I'm advocating ( but not agreeing with, I don't want nor intend to be using total defense all day long! ), so, you probably didn't intend to strengthen my argument by making it easier to use all day long something else I used to make analogies/expouse situation

@ Jay R

I see your point, and agree with it, where I disagree with it is that extrapolation where we assign (differently) subjective meaning to what total defense action represent.

Or spun another way, let's say I, as a player that doesn't know what total defense is, ask you/describe to you something about my character, that would translate into the mechanical effect of "has a +4 dodge bonus against attacks, so long that he isn't doing anything else"

I don't know, let's suppose for whatever reason the character has a speed of 120ft/round, so that even when *leisurely walking at half his max speed* it moves at relative "twice as fast" of normal humanoids.

What would you say if I naively said ( not knowing this is not a thing ) "Hey, my character is very fast! does this makes me harder to hit?"

*Anedocte time, in a oneshot I played a "playful/annoying" fey bard. he was not a quickling equivalent, but "by personality", even while in narrative/local time, I would be costantly moving the token, "running around" my allies, and being a general nuisance ( which I promptly stopped after the first "will you stop it", and by stopped I mean I, the player stopped, the character was assumed that he kept on doing so )
what I'm trying to say is, I feel I can safely say we all are consistently inconsistent into applying real world logic to the situation (a fast character "should" have a dodge bonus to AC)

**to me, that "total defense" is codified under "action in combat" is no reason to not have a, whatever else we shall call it, "totally not total defense" *thing* we can do out of combat, whose mechanical effect is !total defense. We have our character do stuff that lack rule definition all the time, why is this any different?

scenario: party of 4 enter a room. GM describes the room (no immediate treat apparent), and then asks "what do you do?", receives the four answers, then narrate the conseguences and scene until the next "what do you do?"
if the four answers are:

rogue: I go check the chest for traps, then open it
wizard: I go browse the books on the shelves
cleric: I keep an eye out for any interlopers
fighter: I stand ready to deal with any threat, weapons in hands

I understand the cleric and fighter action in this resolution are "do nothing", but why should it be? and meaningfully, if the fighter and cleric would have said "I lightly spar with my friend fighter/cleric, to keep myself on my toes and my muscles limber", (aside from it being absurd "in context"), that last one is not any more exhausting than what the rogue and wizard are doing! (while giving lip service to the artificial "requirement" that "allows" to take the total defense action)


What I'm trying to say is, if "you need to be on tactical time to take tactical actions", and I wanted to take tactical actions, my answer won't be "oh ok, I guess I'm not taking the tactical action", it would be "oh ok, let's be on tactical time then?"
*not that I would! I'm playing devil advocate, because I see "you can't focus on your defenses if you aren't in combat" just as absurd/degenerate as "I will be focusing on my defenses all the time that I'm not doing something else". But on the occasion that I know/suspect a throwdown is just around the corner/behind that door, I find it eminently reasonable that "right now, I expect trouble soon, I set my mind to be a leaf in the wind, until the actual threat materializes or I realize there was no threat to begin with"



Edit: the biggest reason I find it silly to disallow taking total defense outside combat, is because I don't see it being any different from "searching for traps" where there aren't traps. Total defense against threats that aren' t there? Samey thing of searching for traps that aren't there

[Crake]

Which is (kind of) my point, I don't see standing watch/checking for traps/taking the defined total defense action as being meaningfully different from each other when determining if they are light or heavy activities. If they're heavy, they're all heavy, if they're light, they're all light, but regardless of that mechanically, doing heavy activity prevents you from resting, it doesn't cause you to become fatiqued.

I mean, I just disagree that they're not meaningfully different.

Standing watch simply means not being distracted and getting the -5 penalty, it doesn't mean you're spending a move action every turn doing active perception, that would result in you getting two perception checks if the occasion ever arose, which is not what you get, at least not at my table.

Checking for traps is intermittent, you don't check literally every square for traps every step of the way, or maybe you do? I can see that becoming very exhausting very quickly if that IS in fact what you're doing. Typically at my tables, characters will state that they check certain things for traps, like for example, doors, or chests, or a particularly suspicious rug in the middle of the corridor, but not just checking literally every square of every dungeon. If they were doing the latter, I would indeed rate it as being just as exhausting as remaining in total defense all day.

Meanwhile total defense is an active, and constant state of being that your character is in. You are always on guard, you are always on your toes, you are coiled up like a spring, ready to bounce at a moment's notice. THAT is not light activity.


"we will keep an eye out for ambushes" means you'll not have -5 on Spot check/+5 on Listen DC (unification, yeah! (no)) for distraction. Not, you use move action every round.

Not necessarily. Keeping an eye out for ambushes in a pariticular moment would probably be more akin to using a move action for active perception, giving you two rolls to spot/listen, one for the passive, one for the active. Keeping watch however, considering how long it is for, would more entail what you have stated.

[NichG]

IME, pushing this kind of line of argument this far at an actual table just leads to the rules being changed in a more extensive way rather than 'oh okay, you won the nerd fight, take your bonus'.

There's a reason why games are built with multiple levels of abstraction. It's incredibly convenient not to have to run overland travel in a series of 6 second intervals. But that means that you have different approximations of things at different levels to focus on what's likely to be important or not at those levels. Taking advantage of cross-level inconsistencies or trying to force the game into an inappropriate level for the given scale of action is kind of exploiting something done for convenience in order to gain advantage, and that just means that everyone has to have things be a little less convenient. That might mean stuff now applies Fatigued that would not have done so by RAW, or other such changes. Because 'I argued technicalities well enough' never translates to 'we'll let a dysfunctional rule stand and be happy about it', it leads to 'okay you're right by the book, I'm going to go fix the book now'.

For example something like: 'You can take up to 50 standard actions in any given 10 minute period or 100 in any given hour at no penalty; once per hour, if you exceed either of those limits, you become Fatigued or have Fatigued advance to Exhausted'

[Darg]

Neither of those is like saying a rogue or barbarian can use total defense outside of combat. You're reaching.

And you're reaching farther. What makes you think the rules described as for combat are meant to be used outside of combat? The link you cut out of the quote shows the rules not wanting you to use the combat rules outside of combat situations. If using the terms and wording of the rules as evidence is reaching, then I guess you can't prove your case either because we can't trust the rules as a source of evidence.


Checking for traps is intermittent, you don't check literally every square for traps every step of the way, or maybe you do? I can see that becoming very exhausting very quickly if that IS in fact what you're doing. Typically at my tables, characters will state that they check certain things for traps, like for example, doors, or chests, or a particularly suspicious rug in the middle of the corridor, but not just checking literally every square of every dungeon. If they were doing the latter, I would indeed rate it as being just as exhausting as remaining in total defense all day.

Why not? You can roll 10 if you aren't being actively threatened or distracted. The party just moves behind the rogue doing his thing and the in game clock ticks down relatively faster to compensate for the longer duration actions. It's not really a taxing mechanic for players at all unless you make it one. Of course, you wouldn't do this while infiltrating a palace or place with high traffic. It makes no sense to trap those places. But something like a wizards tower? Fair game to trap places that don't stand out, especially because the point of a trap is to not be noticed.

[Quertus]

anything you do "weapon in hand" is heavy activity, even if you aren't using said weapon.

"Oh... you would not part an old man from is walking stick?"

[Crake]

Why not? You can roll 10 if you aren't being actively threatened or distracted. The party just moves behind the rogue doing his thing and the in game clock ticks down relatively faster to compensate for the longer duration actions. It's not really a taxing mechanic for players at all unless you make it one. Of course, you wouldn't do this while infiltrating a palace or place with high traffic. It makes no sense to trap those places. But something like a wizards tower? Fair game to trap places that don't stand out, especially because the point of a trap is to not be noticed.

For the reason i just outlined, its exhausting to be meticulously inspecting every single square repeatedly for hours on end. Remember each square is a minute of inspecting per roll, and my players rolls for example are 2 rolls and a take 10, just in case take 10 doesnt cut it, so thats now 3 minutes per check. Then you also need to remember that the floor isnt the only place that traps can be placed, so now a 10x10x10 room becomes 32 checks, maybe 31 if you minus the door you came in, so 93 minutes just to clear that one room of traps.

[icefractal]

Remember each square is a minute of inspecting per roll, and my players rolls for example are 2 rolls and a take 10, just in case take 10 doesnt cut it, so thats now 3 minutes per check.One minute per 5' square? In what system is that? It seems very slow.
In 3.x, it's one round per square, for comparison.

[Crake]

One minute per 5' square? In what system is that? It seems very slow.
In 3.x, it's one round per square, for comparison.

Oh, you're right, my bad, dunno why I thought it was a minute, but still, it goes from 93 minutes to 9.3 minutes, which is still an appreciably long amount of time for a single 10x10 room. Gets even worse when you consider a lot of dungeons have 10ft wide corridors, so now you're spending 24 rounds per 5ft you travel.

[Darg]

One minute per 5' square? In what system is that? It seems very slow.
In 3.x, it's one round per square, for comparison.

If you're just looking for traps you don't even need to search a whole square. Unlike in combat you don't have to use up the entire space in a square, just where you walk. So you can search up to 10 ft x 2.5 ft ahead of you. That said, they are probably talking about taking 20 on search checks which would take 2 minutes per area searched. Then again you can cut the time if you cut the area you need to search as long as you aren't in combat. So searching a 3x1x1 pedestal should only take a little less than 1/8 the time of searching a whole 5x5x5 cube which is still only 1 full round. Meaning even if you took 20 that pedestal only takes 14.4 seconds to search at most. Of course, this is out of combat so you don't have to stick to rigid limited actions and can work with worldly logic instead.

[ciopo]

Checking for traps is intermittent, you don't check literally every square for traps every step of the way, or maybe you do? I can see that becoming very exhausting very quickly if that IS in fact what you're doing. Typically at my tables, characters will state that they check certain things for traps, like for example, doors, or chests, or a particularly suspicious rug in the middle of the corridor, but not just checking literally every square of every dungeon. If they were doing the latter, I would indeed rate it as being just as exhausting as remaining in total defense all day.

Oh, I absolutely see the statement being done only for "relevant, described elements". If I'm the rogueish character I take it a step further and "bring it down" to not needing to check for it at all with those (pathfinder) rogue talent that gives a passive check against traps plus that trait that allows taking 10 on perception at all times.

Why? Because I've been burned about traps before, because we've been young(er) once and had that unpleasant experience that you "had" to declare searching for traps for every square /feature, otherwise adversarial GM, wouldnt you know it, the trap just happened to be in that one square you didn't search.


Which is a sad extension/extrapolation. But it is "a thing that happened", and so anedoctally "I search for traps" being done for every ****ing square is a reality at some tables, and when I anedoctally bring it up at other tables it seems to be an experience largely shared by others. So.... if searching for traps doesn't fatique, why would total defense?

As an amusing aside, "middle of nowhere hallway not any different from any other hallway" is where I would put a magical trap, of the "glyph of x" variety that can be bypassed with a spoken password


Note that I don't want total defense to be assumed to be taken all the time thst a character isn't doing anything else. I am aware "always taking total defense" is the degenerate extrapolation of "allowing" total defense out of combat. I'm arguing in favor of total defense outside of combat because "the character is doing those same things he'd be doing in combat, except an enemies isn't there" feels rather "possible", and I don't see anything inherent to the action that precludes it from happening without an enemy. "But you can't dodge what isn't there for you to focus on!" Correct, hence flatfooteness, and hence uncanny dodge, which is esplicitly "you CAN dodge what you didn't even know was there!", which neatly makes it elegant in my opinion.

And, in the same way that at "good tables" where there aren't "gotchas", I feel safe in saying that "I check for traps only on those features I feel likely to have traps" is roughly equivalent to "I approach a situation already in a defensive mindset, until I know more", or roughly equivalent to "my specific role in this caravan is to scout for danger, so I'm putting extra effort on doing that", which are the trifecta traps/total defense/active spot checks in the examples I've put forth.

* with the spot escort one also not being all the time, because my experience with it is that with proper description, there will be "something" that triggers our brains into thinking "this seems to be a proper place to put extra effort into spotting things", first example that comes to mind is a description along the lines of "this ravine you have to cross seems to be a good spot for ambushes", which is, to me, the GM prompting us to do exactly that.


There is also a table-signaling kind of thing: GM starts drawing the map, that's a big ****ing clue that "doing stuff measured in round" is likely to happen soonish, and so "of course" the mindset inevitably goes into standard actions... and right there, right now, I find it perfectly sensible to take total defense/make active perceptions checks, because we *know* we are about to throw down, and with proper narration, the charactersmay not know, but they may *suspect* and that's justification enough for me for the metagame we're about to at the least *think* anyway.

If there was very little narration, and I've seen it done, GM draws area, puts your miniatures somewhere, gives a bit of description, and prompts "you're there, now what do you do?" Do you NOT interact with it? Why is an active perception check "okay" but a total defense "not okay" ?


"In every round the rogue is checking for traps, the barbarian is in a ready stance to dodge away" <-- what is controversial about this statement?



Oh, you're right, my bad, dunno why I thought it was a minute, but still, it goes from 93 minutes to 9.3 minutes, which is still an appreciably long amount of time for a single 10x10 room. Gets even worse when you consider a lot of dungeons have 10ft wide corridors, so now you're spending 24 rounds per 5ft you travel.

Well, I've been at tables where a 8 minutes bless somehow elapses between encounters that are only ~2 rooms apart. No, we weren't checking for traps on every single square. So, ironically, I guess that yes, we do spend "minutes" to cross short distances, so if we did check for traps alonng the way... that wouldn't be much more overhead time at all anyway, so might as well :p



IME, pushing this kind of line of argument this far at an actual table just leads to the rules being changed in a more extensive way rather than 'oh okay, you won the nerd fight, take your bonus'.

There's a reason why games are built with multiple levels of abstraction. It's incredibly convenient not to have to run overland travel in a series of 6 second intervals. But that means that you have different approximations of things at different levels to focus on what's likely to be important or not at those levels. Taking advantage of cross-level inconsistencies or trying to force the game into an inappropriate level for the given scale of action is kind of exploiting something done for convenience in order to gain advantage, and that just means that everyone has to have things be a little less convenient. That might mean stuff now applies Fatigued that would not have done so by RAW, or other such changes. Because 'I argued technicalities well enough' never translates to 'we'll let a dysfunctional rule stand and be happy about it', it leads to 'okay you're right by the book, I'm going to go fix the book now'.

For example something like: 'You can take up to 50 standard actions in any given 10 minute period or 100 in any given hour at no penalty; once per hour, if you exceed either of those limits, you become Fatigued or have Fatigued advance to Exhausted'

I agree, that's what's gonna happen with abuse. I don't want to be taking total defense all the time.
But I find it reasonable that in any situation where "I don my shield" is a valid action for the character, "I don my shield and take the total defense action" is an equally valid declaration of intent. And you don't need enemies to make that declaration of intent, it's not 3.5 dodge feat! The snag about "but you don't know what you're defending against" is neatly taken care of by it being a dodge bonus, so what's the problem? Of course by good manners we (at least, I wouldn't) wouldn't abuse it by extrapolation to achieve "I'm taking total defense all the time".

More generally, if we're about to go from local time to tactical time, isn't any defined tactical action "okay"? I'm not advocating doing that all the time, I'm advocating doing that "right now when it makes sense to do so". What kind of prose is it needed to justify specifically total defense? "I have my weapon and shield at hand, and start swaying on my feet, ready to roll out of the way of anything that might spring out of that door the figther is opening" would cut it? Is it a matter of "reasonable suspicion"? I personally, would only do so if I had suspicion of there being creatures, with a successful listen check on the door, for example.

Which is the can of worm of "readied actions outside initiative", which I'm firmly against, and when I adjudicate them I default to "sure you can, but that's going to be your action for the surprise round if you get a surprise round, so first do the stealth check, you don't need to pre-declare what you do with your surprise"

[icefractal]

Oh, you're right, my bad, dunno why I thought it was a minute, but still, it goes from 93 minutes to 9.3 minutes, which is still an appreciably long amount of time for a single 10x10 room. Gets even worse when you consider a lot of dungeons have 10ft wide corridors, so now you're spending 24 rounds per 5ft you travel.I'm still not understanding your math. :smallconfused:

Even with assuming three checks per square to be safe, a 10x10 room would be four squares, so 12 round - 1.2 minutes. A 10' wide corridor would take six rounds per 5', not 24 - and if you're going that slowly anyway, might as well just check one side and stick to that side.

And that's with three checks per square. If you're content to take 10, that's 50' / minute, or 25' if you want to make sure the other side is safe too. Which is a slow pace, but pretty much what OD&D exploration speed assumes, IIRC.

And TBH - what else are you supposed to do in that situation (exploring a place so heavily trapped that any random spot on the floor could be one)? Just stroll through the traps and get hit? I guess that's fine if you're ultra-durable, but in that case the traps don't seem to be contributing much.

[Crake]

I'm still not understanding your math. :smallconfused:

Even with assuming three checks per square to be safe, a 10x10 room would be four squares, so 12 round - 1.2 minutes. A 10' wide corridor would take six rounds per 5', not 24 - and if you're going that slowly anyway, might as well just check one side and stick to that side.

And that's with three checks per square. If you're content to take 10, that's 50' / minute, or 25' if you want to make sure the other side is safe too. Which is a slow pace, but pretty much what OD&D exploration speed assumes, IIRC.

And TBH - what else are you supposed to do in that situation (exploring a place so heavily trapped that any random spot on the floor could be one)? Just stroll through the traps and get hit? I guess that's fine if you're ultra-durable, but in that case the traps don't seem to be contributing much.

You might have missed the part about the fact that traps can also be on walls and ceilings as well, not just the floor, so a 10x10 corridor has 2 squares on the floor, 2 squares on each wall, and 2 squares on the ceiling, for a total of 8 squares per 5ft of travel. 3 checks per square, 24 checks per 5ft of travel.

[Darg]

You might have missed the part about the fact that traps can also be on walls and ceilings as well, not just the floor, so a 10x10 corridor has 2 squares on the floor, 2 squares on each wall, and 2 squares on the ceiling, for a total of 8 squares per 5ft of travel. 3 checks per square, 24 checks per 5ft of travel.

Except every trigger is activated on a square that is interacted with. Location/proximity triggers work in cubed. You aren't going to trigger a wall or ceiling trap if you don't touch the wall or ceiling and walking on the floor/flying over it didn't trigger a trap.

[Crake]

Except every trigger is activated on a square that is interacted with. Location/proximity triggers work in cubed. You aren't going to trigger a wall or ceiling trap if you don't touch the wall or ceiling and walking on the floor/flying over it didn't trigger a trap.

That's not true at all. A floor could have a trapdoor trigger, or a pressure plate, a wall could have a detect spell trigger emanating from it, and a ceiling could have falling rocks triggered by a detector at the end of the corridor that you won't find until you get there, by which point you've already triggered the trap.


If I'm the rogueish character I take it a step further and "bring it down" to not needing to check for it at all with those (pathfinder) rogue talent that gives a passive check against traps plus that trait that allows taking 10 on perception at all times.

NGL, I as both a DM and a player much prefer this as well. It assumes that a well trained rogue is always just passively aware and on the lookout for traps, and also just saves the problem of having trap checkers just slow the dungeon down to a crawl, but it's also largely irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread, which is to say, that searching for traps literally non-stop for an hour WOULD be exhausting, at least in my opinion. Painstakingly double and triple checking every inch for a faint crack you might have missed, or a scuff that might reveal a trap's pathway, it sounds tedious, strainful on the eyes and stressful on the mind, knowing that if you miss anything, it could result in someone getting killed.

[Darg]

That's not true at all. A floor could have a trapdoor trigger, or a pressure plate, a wall could have a detect spell trigger emanating from it, and a ceiling could have falling rocks triggered by a detector at the end of the corridor that you won't find until you get there, by which point you've already triggered the trap.

Search range is only 10 ft. Detect trigger traps have a range of 60 ft and visual and sound trigger traps can have up to unlimited range. You aren't defeating these traps using the search skill unless you allow search to discover the trap based on trigger location instead of the location of the mechanism. So your argument is kind if moot. Personally, the trigger is part of a trap and so I allow searchers to discover traps that way. Most of the time those traps have a bypass anyways. Unless it's like a mummy's tomb, someone is going to want to bypass a trap.

[Crake]

Search range is only 10 ft. Detect trigger traps have a range of 60 ft and visual and sound trigger traps can have up to unlimited range. You aren't defeating these traps using the search skill unless you allow search to discover the trap based on trigger location instead of the location of the mechanism. So your argument is kind if moot. Personally, the trigger is part of a trap and so I allow searchers to discover traps that way. Most of the time those traps have a bypass anyways. Unless it's like a mummy's tomb, someone is going to want to bypass a trap.

That's like claiming you should be able to see people's cone of vision. If a sound trigger is around a corner, and the firing mechanism is at the end of a corridor to release a cloudkill down the corridor, and you're searching the 5-10ft in front of you, yeah, no, you're not gonna find the trap by mundane searching.

But again, largely irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. Whether you're searching 2 squares every 5 ft or 8 squares, searching nonstop for an hour would still be tedious and exhausting, and is not how the majority of players will play in my experience.

[Darg]

That's like claiming you should be able to see people's cone of vision. If a sound trigger is around a corner, and the firing mechanism is at the end of a corridor to release a cloudkill down the corridor, and you're searching the 5-10ft in front of you, yeah, no, you're not gonna find the trap by mundane searching.

But again, largely irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. Whether you're searching 2 squares every 5 ft or 8 squares, searching nonstop for an hour would still be tedious and exhausting, and is not how the majority of players will play in my experience.

It's a skill. You learn things from experience. Even if you don't have direct evidence of something you can use that experience to tell you that something is there and that you really don't want to enter that space. The smallest details can give clues to what is likely ahead like a pocket of unusually still air or unnerving quiet.

Taking 20 takes 0 OoC time. As a DM I make use of time contraction on the regular. It makes the game actually playable and has the bonus side effect of running out the clock on short term buffs. If your searchers are not taking 20 for searching for traps when not in combat or rushed, I don't know what to tell you. There's no immediate consequence for failure so qualifies for it and the fact that the minimum DC for finding traps is 20 should be a clue that it's meant to be done by taking 20 just like opening locks.

[NichG]

This sort of thing is why passive perception is such a good design idea...

[Darg]

This sort of thing is why passive perception is such a good design idea...

Even in pathfinder, trapfinding requires an active perception check to find traps without the Trap Spotter rogue talent.

[Jay R]

@ Jay R

I see your point, and agree with it, where I disagree with it is that extrapolation where we assign (differently) subjective meaning to what total defense action represent.

Or spun another way, let's say I, as a player that doesn't know what total defense is, ask you/describe to you something about my character, that would translate into the mechanical effect of "has a +4 dodge bonus against attacks, so long that he isn't doing anything else"

I don't know, let's suppose for whatever reason the character has a speed of 120ft/round, so that even when *leisurely walking at half his max speed* it moves at relative "twice as fast" of normal humanoids.

What would you say if I naively said ( not knowing this is not a thing ) "Hey, my character is very fast! does this makes me harder to hit?"

*Anedocte time, in a oneshot I played a "playful/annoying" fey bard. he was not a quickling equivalent, but "by personality", even while in narrative/local time, I would be costantly moving the token, "running around" my allies, and being a general nuisance ( which I promptly stopped after the first "will you stop it", and by stopped I mean I, the player stopped, the character was assumed that he kept on doing so )
what I'm trying to say is, I feel I can safely say we all are consistently inconsistent into applying real world logic to the situation (a fast character "should" have a dodge bonus to AC)

**to me, that "total defense" is codified under "action in combat" is no reason to not have a, whatever else we shall call it, "totally not total defense" *thing* we can do out of combat, whose mechanical effect is !total defense. We have our character do stuff that lack rule definition all the time, why is this any different?

scenario: party of 4 enter a room. GM describes the room (no immediate treat apparent), and then asks "what do you do?", receives the four answers, then narrate the conseguences and scene until the next "what do you do?"
if the four answers are:

rogue: I go check the chest for traps, then open it
wizard: I go browse the books on the shelves
cleric: I keep an eye out for any interlopers
fighter: I stand ready to deal with any threat, weapons in hands

I understand the cleric and fighter action in this resolution are "do nothing", but why should it be? and meaningfully, if the fighter and cleric would have said "I lightly spar with my friend fighter/cleric, to keep myself on my toes and my muscles limber", (aside from it being absurd "in context"), that last one is not any more exhausting than what the rogue and wizard are doing! (while giving lip service to the artificial "requirement" that "allows" to take the total defense action)


What I'm trying to say is, if "you need to be on tactical time to take tactical actions", and I wanted to take tactical actions, my answer won't be "oh ok, I guess I'm not taking the tactical action", it would be "oh ok, let's be on tactical time then?"
*not that I would! I'm playing devil advocate, because I see "you can't focus on your defenses if you aren't in combat" just as absurd/degenerate as "I will be focusing on my defenses all the time that I'm not doing something else". But on the occasion that I know/suspect a throwdown is just around the corner/behind that door, I find it eminently reasonable that "right now, I expect trouble soon, I set my mind to be a leaf in the wind, until the actual threat materializes or I realize there was no threat to begin with"



Edit: the biggest reason I find it silly to disallow taking total defense outside combat, is because I don't see it being any different from "searching for traps" where there aren't traps. Total defense against threats that aren' t there? Samey thing of searching for traps that aren't there

On the subject of speed adding to defense:

I agree that the simulation is too simplistic. All simulations of combat are too simplistic. This is one of hundreds of possible improvements to the accuracy of the simulation. If we made all the improvements possible, they game would be far too complex to play.

My simulations professor once said, "A simulation should be as complex as necessary, but no more." There have been legitimate arguments for decades over how complex a role-playing combat simulation should be, and there are lots of legitimate answers. I have no inherent problem with adding speed to the defense.

And after whatever changes you make to the system, we will still be "consistently inconsistent." The most inconsistent piece at all is hit points. If it is not possible to kill a foe with a single blow, the system is inconsistent with reality. At some point we have to suspend disbelief and play the game.

But this is a side issue. The thread is about the Total Defense action.

----

Your assumption is that you can be more cautious than most other PCs walking through dungeons or haunted forests, and get a +4 bonus over all these other people. My assumption is that everybody is pretty concerned and looking around, and that's the normal state. Whatever bonus you get for being cautious is already built in.

Total Defense is a much higher focus when somebody is actively trying to kill you right now, and you drop all other thought – searching, exploring, etc. – and just focus on finding and blocking immediate threats and nothing else.

The distinction is not artificial, and can’t be triggered by sparring with a friend. There is no comparison between "My friend and I are exercising to stay limber" and "Somebody is trying to kill me right now!"

This is not analogous to searching for traps. Total Defense is only possible as a reaction to being attacked. Searching for traps is done when the trap is not attacking you.

Two weeks ago, I was out checking out the pumphouse. I'd been told that there were wasps in it, and I was being careful. That was the best level of defensive posture I could take.

As soon as I opened the door, several wasps that had been on the door flew out. One flew straight toward my face, stung my cheek, and flew off. For the next few seconds, I was scared, avoiding wasps, looking around all directions for them, and thinking about nothing else. Mt glasses fell off my face, and I didn't look for them. I kept looking out for wasps and retreating. That was total defense.

A few minutes later, with a puffy face, I went back to look for my glasses. I was very concerned about the wasps, but I was also trying to look over all the ground and find my glasses. [A friend found them.] That was back on the defensive level of somebody not in combat.

There was no way I could have had the same focus while opening the door that I had immediately afterward. Nor could I have maintained it while looking for my glasses. For a few seconds immediately after the wasp stung me, I had a level of focus on getting away from them that I could not duplicate before or after. That's what the +4 is.

Another example. I'm a pretty careful driver in general. I watch the road, control my speed, drive defensively, watching for other drivers, etc.

Once, when I was driving on the freeway, I saw one car hit another car, two cars ahead of me in my lane, knocking one of them off the roadway rolling over a full 360, while the one in front of me was damaged and slowing down.

Immediately I was on full alert, watching the car rolling to see if it hit other cars, slowing down to not hit the one in my lane, looking behind me to see if the car behind me was slowing down. For a few seconds I was on an absolute full alert.

Twenty minutes later, after offering first aid and talking to the police, I was on the road again. I was very much concerned with safety -- more than usual. But I was not as absolutely focused as I was back when I was wondering if I would be part of the accident.

The Total Defense action simulates those few adrenaline-fueled seconds when I was watching a wreck in front of me, or escaping from wasps that had already stung me. It can't be kept up for long, and can't even be reached without an immediate threat to trigger it.

It’s not "you need to be on tactical time to take tactical actions."

It’s closer to "You need to have somebody trying to kill you right now to have absolute focus on the fact that somebody is trying to kill you right now." After the wasp stung me, I was much more defensive. After the crash in front of me, I was far more focused on all the cars around me.

As a DM, I have no objection to taking the Total Defense action in the surprise round. You know what the threat is and are reacting to that threat. That’s reasonable, and assumes that you have actually seen or heard the threat.

By contrast, I knew that there were wasps, but hadn’t seen them. The wasp stung me in the surprise round, and I was flat-footed. Even though I’d been told that there were wasps, and was trying to be careful, I could not generate the same level of focus that I had after being attacked.

But really, the biggest difference in our opinions boils down to this. I assume everybody down in a dungeon is being cautious. You can’t say that you’re being cautious and get a +4 advantage over all the other cautious characters. You can say that you are not bothering to hit your opponents back and are therefore more defensive than the characters who are trying to attack.

[NichG]

Even in pathfinder, trapfinding requires an active perception check to find traps without the Trap Spotter rogue talent.

Well don't copy that when using the design idea.

[Darg]

And after whatever changes you make to the system, we will still be "consistently inconsistent." The most inconsistent piece at all is hit points. If it is not possible to kill a foe with a single blow, the system is inconsistent with reality. At some point we have to suspend disbelief and play the game.

In 3.5 HP doesn't just signify actual harm taken. It also to some extent represents combat fatigue. Any ways, it's 100% possible to OH kill anything with massive blows and them failing their save. It's not a death effect so there is no protection.

[ciopo]

As a DM, I have no objection to taking the Total Defense action in the surprise round. You know what the threat is and are reacting to that threat. That’s reasonable, and assumes that you have actually seen or heard the threat.

By contrast, I knew that there were wasps, but hadn’t seen them. The wasp stung me in the surprise round, and I was flat-footed. Even though I’d been told that there were wasps, and was trying to be careful, I could not generate the same level of focus that I had after being attacked.

But really, the biggest difference in our opinions boils down to this. I assume everybody down in a dungeon is being cautious. You can’t say that you’re being cautious and get a +4 advantage over all the other cautious characters. You can say that you are not bothering to hit your opponents back and are therefore more defensive than the characters who are trying to attack.

Ok, but you wouldn't have been flatfooted if you had that extraordinary 6th sense whose reality maps to the fiction of uncanny dodge, would you? You'd react to danger even before being aware there is a danger! IF you *had* the superhuman barbarian/rogue danger sense, wouldn't you probably better react to the wasp situation? If you're spiderman, do you not dodge out of the way of things your eyes don't see? Is your (and mine, and whoever ficitonal character without uncanny dodge) preparedness the same as someone with uncanny dodge? We are talking about the fiction of someone which it's known that can react to dangers they aren't aware of! While we can't.

and on the inconsistently consistent or viceversa, what you imagine total defense to be is not what I imagine it to be, which probably contributes to this disconnect of opinions we have on the topic at hand.
Pedantly, every other adventurer that are also "on their toes" are clearly not as on their toes as the uncanny dodge rogue/barbarian is. /= /=, to me it boils down to give an answer that isn't "nothing" when the GM asks "what is your character doing in the meantime?" while it's clear we are not in "narrative time". Assumign the other possible interactions ( with the enviroment/other players/other creatures etc ) have been exhausted and we're clearly transitioning from "we are reasonably safe" to "we are opening an unknown and there is reasonable suspicion it might not be safe". (and total defense would be "nothing" just the same without uncanny dodge). I guess I'll hunker down behind some manner of total cover instead. An activity that requires less effort for a superior result!

p.s. : you could have brought a 10ft pole!

[Doctor Despair]

Any ways, it's 100% possible to OH kill anything with massive blows and them failing their save. It's not a death effect so there is no protection.

Regeneration; can't apply massive damage if they don't take damage.

Steadfast Determination and +14 fort save also gets you there.

[Darg]

Regeneration; can't apply massive damage if they don't take damage.

Steadfast Determination and +14 fort save also gets you there.

What's your point? That there are avenues to bypass OHKOs? I did qualify the statement that they need to fail their save. If it's impossible to fail the save then it's impossible to fail the save. As for regeneration, trollbane solves that problem.

Though, there is an argument that regeneration doesn't make damage taken nonlethal damage, it just gets "treated as" nonlethal damage. There was a web article that clarified how it worked and why nonlethal damage immunity would actually hinder a creature with regeneration. Basically the creature still takes damage as normal, but they are immune to nonlethal damage so it can't be converted because the creature is immune. In practical terms it would be like if a spell takes some or all damage you have taken so far and treats it as if it were nonlethal for the duration. The damage you already took doesn't disappear just because the creature is immune to nonlethal damage.

[Crake]

It's a skill. You learn things from experience. Even if you don't have direct evidence of something you can use that experience to tell you that something is there and that you really don't want to enter that space. The smallest details can give clues to what is likely ahead like a pocket of unusually still air or unnerving quiet.

Taking 20 takes 0 OoC time. As a DM I make use of time contraction on the regular. It makes the game actually playable and has the bonus side effect of running out the clock on short term buffs. If your searchers are not taking 20 for searching for traps when not in combat or rushed, I don't know what to tell you. There's no immediate consequence for failure so qualifies for it and the fact that the minimum DC for finding traps is 20 should be a clue that it's meant to be done by taking 20 just like opening locks.

You keep arguing past the point. All the details you're bringing up are not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about the ramifications of effectively hustling all day long. The exact details of how, where and why you're searching is irrelevant, only that you're searching constantly, non-stop for hours on end.

[Darg]

You keep arguing past the point. All the details you're bringing up are not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about the ramifications of effectively hustling all day long. The exact details of how, where and why you're searching is irrelevant, only that you're searching constantly, non-stop for hours on end.

You can hustle on the local scale without a problem. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#localHustle) There are three movement scales: tactical, local, and overland. It's only when you hustle over an hour during overland movement that you suffer nonlethal damage and fatigue. Tactical is for combat, local is for exploration, and overland is long distance travel. If you're equating searching all day long with hustling in the same movement scale then you don't suffer any ill effects.

[Crake]

You can hustle on the local scale without a problem. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#localHustle) There are three movement scales: tactical, local, and overland. It's only when you hustle over an hour during overland movement that you suffer nonlethal damage and fatigue. Tactical is for combat, local is for exploration, and overland is long distance travel. If you're equating searching all day long with hustling in the same movement scale then you don't suffer any ill effects.

Yes, local, in timescales measured in minutes. If you go over an hour, then you’re risking fatigue.

[Darg]

Yes, local, in timescales measured in minutes. If you go over an hour, then you’re risking fatigue.

Except you have one problem with equating the two, you aren't even moving your speed. Hustling is moving your speed and taking a standard or movement equivalent action in the same round. Searching is a full-round action. You aren't moving and searching at the same time except maybe a 5 ft step. You also aren't doing anything strenuous if you're searching a square 10 ft in front of you because the only thing you can search with is your non-direct senses of sight, smell, hearing, and possibly taste (you can taste ionization in the air for example). Those don't take a lot of effort to use. And honestly, you wouldn't want to be searching for traps by touch anyways.

[Crake]

Except you have one problem with equating the two, you aren't even moving your speed. Hustling is moving your speed and taking a standard or movement equivalent action in the same round. Searching is a full-round action. You aren't moving and searching at the same time except maybe a 5 ft step. You also aren't doing anything strenuous if you're searching a square 10 ft in front of you because the only thing you can search with is your non-direct senses of sight, smell, hearing, and possibly taste (you can taste ionization in the air for example). Those don't take a lot of effort to use. And honestly, you wouldn't want to be searching for traps by touch anyways.

If you think searching for traps is light activity, i challenge you to get up in the middle of the night, search for life threatening traps, then go straight back to bed.

As for movement, standards, and full rounds, that is pointless semantics

[ciopo]

Well, good news everyone! Conversation is an heavy activity! Introverts rejoice, we have the perfect excuse to talk less now!

Jokes aside, I reviewed a bit of where I found mentions of fatigue (and it's fatiGue apparently, not fatiQue as I've been saying all those years, who would have guessed!?), other than caused by spells, I mean.

PHB :
overland travel (hustle/forced march)
sleeping in medium/heavy armor
swimming for hours
barbarian rage

DMG:
altitude/breathing
cold/heat exposure
starvation/thirst

and that's about it, apparently adventures do not tire, exactly as we've been doing all along!


Most keenly, the general case seems to be that tiring activities causes you nonlethal damage, and while you have that nonlethal damage you are fatigued, if you heal the nonlethal damage you stop being fatigued, so in the hypothetical, all oyu need is some renewable/cheap out of combat healing and we're good to go!



I'm sorry, I coulnd't resist poking fun at how conversation is heavy activity, according to the rules for arcane spells recovery

[Crake]

Well, good news everyone! Conversation is an heavy activity! Introverts rejoice, we have the perfect excuse to talk less now!

Jokes aside, I reviewed a bit of where I found mentions of fatigue (and it's fatiGue apparently, not fatiQue as I've been saying all those years, who would have guessed!?), other than caused by spells, I mean.

PHB :
overland travel (hustle/forced march)
sleeping in medium/heavy armor
swimming for hours
barbarian rage

DMG:
altitude/breathing
cold/heat exposure
starvation/thirst

and that's about it, apparently adventures do not tire, exactly as we've been doing all along!


Most keenly, the general case seems to be that tiring activities causes you nonlethal damage, and while you have that nonlethal damage you are fatigued, if you heal the nonlethal damage you stop being fatigued, so in the hypothetical, all oyu need is some renewable/cheap out of combat healing and we're good to go!



I'm sorry, I coulnd't resist poking fun at how conversation is heavy activity, according to the rules for arcane spells recovery

Keep in mind that hustling is defined as either double moving, or moving and standard acting for an hour, so i think instead full round acting for an hour would also count for hustling

[Jay R]

Ok, but you wouldn't have been flatfooted if you had that extraordinary 6th sense whose reality maps to the fiction of uncanny dodge, would you? You'd react to danger even before being aware there is a danger! IF you *had* the superhuman barbarian/rogue danger sense, wouldn't you probably better react to the wasp situation? If you're spiderman, do you not dodge out of the way of things your eyes don't see?

Sure. This is getting your DEX bonus even when defined as flat-footed. It isn't an additional +4.


Is your (and mine, and whoever ficitonal character without uncanny dodge) preparedness the same as someone with uncanny dodge? We are talking about the fiction of someone which it's known that can react to dangers they aren't aware of! While we can't.

Sure, but that's not the topic. Somebody with Uncanny Dodge has his DEX bonus, while somebody without it does not.

The only way that would be relevant is if you are maintaining that only somebody with Uncanny Dodge could turn on Total Defense out of combat. If so, I missed it.

But the issue is whether either person, with or without Uncanny Dodge, can just turn on an additional +4 defense at all times, because they are declaring that they are more cautious than anybody else.

Assuming you could just turn it on, outside of combat, everybody would do so, and every foe you ever meet would have that +4, just as everybody in your party would. In which case it's not a bonus; it's the standard situation.

I think it is the standard situation, and any bonuses for paying attention are already there.

Total Defense is dropping all focus on throwing shots in combat, in exchange for using all that processing power on dodging and blocking. It's Captain America just blocking with his shield and not throwing it. It's Batman dodging gunfire while Robin gets behind the crooks. Or it's Spider-Man dodging gunfire even better using his Spider Sense.

Maybe you can do it just before the fight starts. I have no problem with taking it in the surprise round. But if you do, you aren't preparing to open a door, and you aren't readying a spell. You're just dodging and blocking. [What, by the way, are you dodging or blocking?]


and on the inconsistently consistent or viceversa, what you imagine total defense to be is not what I imagine it to be, which probably contributes to this disconnect of opinions we have on the topic at hand.

I suspect the biggest disconnect is that how you imagine walking through a dungeon is not how I imagine it. You think you are normally just walking along not being careful and cautious, and that you start being so later as a decision. I think that caution is always there.


Pedantly, every other adventurer that are also "on their toes" are clearly not as on their toes as the uncanny dodge rogue/barbarian is. /= /=, to me it boils down to give an answer that isn't "nothing" when the GM asks "what is your character doing in the meantime?" while it's clear we are not in "narrative time". Assumign the other possible interactions ( with the enviroment/other players/other creatures etc ) have been exhausted and we're clearly transitioning from "we are reasonably safe" to "we are opening an unknown and there is reasonable suspicion it might not be safe". (and total defense would be "nothing" just the same without uncanny dodge).

Exactly. You think walking through a dungeon is reasonably safe. I don't.

"I am opening an unknown and there is reasonable suspicion it might not be safe" is exactly what I thought before opening the pumphouse door. And it wasn't equivalent to what I did after the surprise attack. Nor do I feel that I could possibly have been as focused while opening the door as I was in combat.


I guess I'll hunker down behind some manner of total cover instead. An activity that requires less effort for a superior result!

Yup. The cost for that is having to go where the cover is, and you can't do it unless there is cover. The cost for Total Defense is forfeiting your attacks or other combat actions, and you can't do that unless you have attacks or other combat actions to forfeit.

In any event, it's a DM judgment call. Run your games the way you and your friends think it should go, and have fun with it. I will run my games the way my friends and I think it should go, and we will have fun.

Different DMs will make different calls, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[icefractal]

Assuming you could just turn it on, outside of combat, everybody would do so, and every foe you ever meet would have that +4, just as everybody in your party would. In which case it's not a bonus; it's the standard situation.They could turn it on at the cost of taking other actions. And yes, people are taking actions outside of combat, they just aren't using the initiative system to sequence them.

There are a lot of things that people may want to be doing in a high-danger environment:
* Hustling to get through the area faster
* Keeping active watch for enemies
* Searching for traps
* Maintaining spells (re-casting Resistance each minute in PF1, for example)
* Mapping the route / marking walls for a quick escape later

So "maintaining active defense" is just one more option there, which competes against all other options. If you have Uncanny Dodge and no applicable skills to be using instead, it may be the best option. That's fine, it's not a problem any more than "Someone with great Perception is almost always using the 'search for traps' or 'watch for enemies' option."

And like other action-intense options, it's tiring to do all day (I don't see a good case for move+standard being less tiring than move+move). Not a big problem in a non-huge dungeon, but that's also fine - it's reasonable and appropriate for characters to have a higher level of defense when they're actively exploring a dangerous environment for a relatively short time than when they're living their normal lives.

[ciopo]

Sure. This is getting your DEX bonus even when defined as flat-footed. It isn't an additional +4.

Sure, but that's not the topic. Somebody with Uncanny Dodge has his DEX bonus, while somebody without it does not.

The only way that would be relevant is if you are maintaining that only somebody with Uncanny Dodge could turn on Total Defense out of combat. If so, I missed it.

But the issue is whether either person, with or without Uncanny Dodge, can just turn on an additional +4 defense at all times, because they are declaring that they are more cautious than anybody else.

The relevance of Uncanny dodge is due to total defense being classified as a dodge bonus, which you lose if flat-footed, so yeah, it's germane to the discussion, because if you had had uncanny dodge, you wouldn't have been caught flatfooted.
Why, perhabs you did take a total defense action, but you got caught flatfooted anyway, and so the cosmic balance was achieved, hooray!

I'm not claiming only somebody with Uncanny dodge can turn on Total Defense out of combat, but only with uncanny dodge you do practically get the benefit of it. Because of course everybody can declared "I start swaying on my toes to dodge away from attacks at a moment notice". It's prose I'm using to describe total defense. can *I*, right now, start to sway and shadowbox?
Physically, I mean. The answer to that is yes, unequivocally. Will that help me at all? Also unequivocally no! *would* it help me if Uncanny dodge was a real thing? As described, yes! Because the prose used against it boils down to "but that's silly, how are you preparing to reach better to an attack you don't know is there?" and the answer to that is, UNCANNY DODGE!

Practically speaking, if Crazy McRogue and Crazy McFighter decide to shadowbox the air, and out of nowhere surprise arrows happens! McRogue keeps his DEX-to-AC ( and dodge bonuses!), while McFighter doesn't, because he's caught flatfooted.

That said, also of course I woulnd't "sway my way" while I'm in town talking to a stall vendor or whatever, because I'm mature enough to *not* extrapolate to the "I can do this out of combat --> I'll do it all the time".

If my character is storming a dungeon? damn right McRogue and McFigther would be equally "on their toes" al the time, but it just so happens that rogueish toes are the superior toes! *why wouldn't they?*


[What, by the way, are you dodging or blocking?] you say, and I say "well, uncanny dodge let's me dodge the unknown, so I'll dodge the unknown

I think it is the standard situation, and any bonuses for paying attention are already there. Are they, are they really? what is flatfootedness then? and Uncanny dodge in relation to that, in the narrative? Would you say it's a fair assesment that someone with uncanny dodge is narratively more ready to react to stuff than someone without?


Assuming you could just turn it on, outside of combat, everybody would do so, and every foe you ever meet would have that +4, just as everybody in your party would. more power to them, it'll do exactly nothing unless they have some way to retain dex and doge bonus to AC while flat-footed


Yup. The cost for that is having to go where the cover is, and you can't do it unless there is cover. The cost for Total Defense is forfeiting your attacks or other combat actions, and you can't do that unless you have attacks or other combat actions to forfeit. Nowhere does total defense mentions attacks. "You can defend yourself as a standard action." that's all it says, narratively speaking. It doesn't require "forfeiting your attacks" any more than casting a spell requires "forfeiting your attacks"; except tangentially because those all use the same standard action "cost". If the reasoning for forbidding total defense out of combat is "you can't do that unless you have attacks or other combat actions to forfeit", the same can be said about casting a spell, or hustling for double movement, or using special abilities, or activating magic items. Total defense does not mention attacks at all ( unlike fightning defensively )

[Darg]

It doesn't require "forfeiting your attacks" any more than casting a spell requires "forfeiting your attacks"

You forfeit your attacks of opportunity. Using just the core rules, That is all the attacks you could ever make in a round.

[Crake]

The only way that would be relevant is if you are maintaining that only somebody with Uncanny Dodge could turn on Total Defense out of combat. If so, I missed it.

This was actually brought up, yes. Since the AC bonus from total defense is a dodge bonus, its lost if you’re flat footed, ergo, anyone without something like uncanny dodge would lose it until their first action in combat anyway, so no reason to do it