According to Attack Specialization (http://www.openlegendrpg.com/feats/attack_specialization), I may gain adv based on the weapon type I choose. Let’s say I choose unarmed melee using agility for my attribute.
The Defend Interrupt Action is not an attack but Battlefield Reflexes (http://www.openlegendrpg.com/feats/battlefield_reflexes) allows me to do damage to the attacker. Would I be able to get advantage with Attack Specialization if I’m damaging the attacker.
I know full well that there is a feat for increasing advantage when taking the Defend Action, but it doesn’t help if there isn’t an opportunity to defend.
I think the key is that the defend interrupt action calls for an action roll, but that action roll is not a damaging attack. Battlefield Reflexes modifies the defend interrupt by tacking on damage, but a damaging attack is never made during the interrupt.
Honeybadger is correct
The only thing that modifies a defend interrupt are Defensive items and the feats that deal directly with defend interrupt.
Attack Specialization does not count towards it.
Thank you for that insight!
Since that is the case would Skill Specialization (http://www.openlegendrpg.com/feats/skill_specialization) work while taking the Defend Action since it is a “non-attack” roll?
Well, technically as the effect is written, you could probably argue that. However in the description:
Is clearly the intention. So I would rule no as a GM.
I can see why a GM would rule “no” but if you were in a combat and had to run across a tight rope to get to the enemy shooting at you, would you not use any applicable attribute to do this without attacking or invoking?
If defending isn’t an attack then it has to be a non-attack action or is it possible in this game that a action is neither attack nor non-attack?
I just think Defending Interrupt Action should be a bit more defined as either an attack or non-attack action using these keywords.
Maybe some clarity is needed, but “action roll” is pretty well defined. Furthermore, an “attack” action, read literally is actually using a Major Action to “make a damaging attack”. Defend says “make an action roll”. Attack specialization references “damaging attack” very specifically.
Its a bit of a square is a rectangle type thing: a damaging attack is an action roll, but an action roll is not a damaging attack.