While total defensive do you threaten adjacent squares? Flank?

[Mouseferatu]

Since the game rules do not appear to offer a precise answer, let's bring in logic.

Your opponent doesn't know how many attacks "per round" you get, because your opponent doesn't measure things in rounds. Your opponent has no way of knowing that you're going "totally defensive." All your opponent knows is that there's an enemy behind him, and he has to divide his attention. Hence, flanked.

To bring this back to game rules, as someone else pointed out, if you have to be able to attack that round, then you shouldn't threaten if it's after your turn in the round and you're out of AoOs. I can't even imagine anyone enforcing a rule like that. I think it's pretty clear by the spirit of the rules that you still threaten an area even if fighting defensively, because you're not helpless and you could attack into that area without moving.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

I like to agree with the Mouse.

In terms of the rules, you are correct...you cannot threaten a person while fighting defensively. But, I tend to side on this one with the spirit of the rule. An opponent does not know how many attacks you have and if he is being pressed from two sides.

The question then becomes 'would someone notice if you are fighting defensively'? When you're not trying to attack them from the flank, that might strike me as somewhat odd and I might realize that you are *not* trying to attack me.

However, you are still a threat. To pretend you aren't even there could be deadly... I have to say that you are still threatening someone simply by presenting the threat of force and a blade.

 

[Coredump]

Initiative:

On 19 bad guy A runs by, you take AoO on him
On 16 you drink a potion, so you *cannot attack* that round.
On 12 bad guy B runs up to you and attacks (misses, cuz I'm nice)
On 7 Rogue runs up on the other side of BG B.

Are you saying that BG B is *not* being flanked? That you do *not* threaten him? After all, There is no way that you are able to make a melee attack on him.


Try this one
Bad Guy A is next to you
Scenario ONE

19 Rogue moves up 'behind' BG A and sneak attacks
14 You go full defensive
11 BG A attacks you (and misses)

Or Scenario TWO

19 you go defensive
14 rogue flanks and attacks
11 BG A misses

Many are saying that ONE is okay, but TWO is not. That just doesn't make sense. You aren't doing anything differently, and the BG A doesn't know anything differently


What about a Cleric with a mace and a Vow of Peace (or pacifism, whatever the no hurt one is)
Are you saying he would not threaten any squares?


I say yes, he still threatens those squares, there is no way of knowing when an opponent can or cannot attack. Unless of course you play that the *characters* are aware of how long a round is, and what exactly can be done in one, and what it means to be 'full defensive', etc. If you are a member of the ORder of the Stick, than fine, no threaten, otherwise, yes threaten. (ant least IMO)

 

[AuraSeer]

Your opponent doesn't know how many attacks "per round" you get[...]

That's not relevant. Flanking doesn't care how many attacks you get, only whether you threaten the square.

If you're (in game terms) threatening the square, you're (in English) threatening the person in that square. You've got your weapon ready to attack; you're attempting to find an opening in the opponent's defense. You may be too slow to take advantage of such an opening more than once per round-- but then again you might be fast enough, and either way it's something the opponent must take into account.*

When you go on total defense, all you are worried about is defending yourself. You're holding your weapon in an entirely defensive manner; you're prepared to parry rather than attack; you're watching the opponent not for holes in his defense, but for attacks you'll need to avoid. When you are using total defense, that should be as obvious as when you lack a ready weapon with which to attack. In either case, you are obviously unable to attack and should therefore not grant flanking bonuses.

(*Whether this makes complete sense is another question, as keeps coming up when people use summon monster i to gain flanking bonuses against a great wyrm. But it's how flanking works in the RAW, and changing the basic mechanic goes well into the realm of house rules.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

When you go on total defense, all you are worried about is defending yourself. You're holding your weapon in an entirely defensive manner; you're prepared to parry rather than attack; you're watching the opponent not for holes in his defense, but for attacks you'll need to avoid. When you are using total defense, that should be as obvious as when you lack a ready weapon with which to attack. In either case, you are obviously unable to attack and should therefore not grant flanking bonuses.

Of course, if you have the Expert Tactician feat (Sword and Fist / Song and Silence), you would still technically threaten, since the Total Defense action would not prevent you gaining a melee attack against an opponent denied his Dex bonus before or after your action in the round... which means that the squares around you are still "squares into which you can make a melee attack", and thus you threaten them.

-Hyp.

 

[was]

Okay, now I'm confused reading all this. I thought that:
1.) Fighting defensively incurred penalties to your attacks, but added to your
AC. You can still make regular attacks and AoO's with this.
2.) Total defense was doing nothing but defending yourself, preventing your
character from making any type of attack. In other words, you cannot
engage your enemy in combat this round when choosing this option.
Thus, I figured that if you cannot make an attack this round you cannot threaten any square this round. Did I read this wrong, and if so, which part did I screw up?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Of course, if you have the Expert Tactician feat (Sword and Fist / Song and Silence), you would still technically threaten, since the Total Defense action would not prevent you gaining a melee attack against an opponent denied his Dex bonus before or after your action in the round... which means that the squares around you are still "squares into which you can make a melee attack", and thus you threaten them.

Interesting synergy.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you're (in game terms) threatening the square, you're (in English) threatening the person in that square. You've got your weapon ready to attack; you're attempting to find an opening in the opponent's defense. You may be too slow to take advantage of such an opening more than once per round-- but then again you might be fast enough, and either way it's something the opponent must take into account.*

When you go on total defense, all you are worried about is defending yourself. You're holding your weapon in an entirely defensive manner; you're prepared to parry rather than attack; you're watching the opponent not for holes in his defense, but for attacks you'll need to avoid. When you are using total defense, that should be as obvious as when you lack a ready weapon with which to attack. In either case, you are obviously unable to attack and should therefore not grant flanking bonuses.

But by that logic, someone who's used up all their attacks and AoOs for the round is also not threatening the square, at least not until his next move. So the target isn't flanked for half a round? That makes no sense.

Remember, the logic behind flanking is that the target has to split his attention. Therefore, logic suggests that what the target knows/doesn't know about the flanking character is relevant. Add to that the fact that the RAW already support the notion of characters threatening squares even if they aren't immediately capable of attacking, and you're left with a strong case for the notion that even people taking full defense still technically threaten.

 

[SableWyvern]

I certainly find it difficult to comprehend any sort of logic that would argue a character on total defence cannot provide a flanking bonus.

Total Defence does not mean cowering with your weapon held up before your face. It means standing in a combatative stance, carefully eyeing off your opponent, watching his every move and preparing to counter.

A skilled opponent may well realise that you have taken a completely defensive stance. However, unless he could read your mind, he would not be aware that you do not plan to make an attack even if he completely ignores you. And, as long as he is therefore not willing to ignore you, your companion should gain a flanking bonus.

 

[two]

Agreed, total defense should allow aoo's

If only because the whole POINT of "total defense" is to, well, defend oneself?

Right?

So why is it HARDER for a 20th level fighter using "total defense" to stop a level1 mook from grappling, than if the fighter is NOT using "total defense?"

i.e. if the fighter20 is just standing there, and a mook tries to grapple, the fighter20 takes an AOO and splits the mook from crown to sole.

However, if the fighter is standing there with "total defense", super-aware and reacting to all threats, forsaking attacks which might extend his defense too much, a mook somehow can just jump on in and start trying to grapple without drawing an AOO?

Uh.

Hello?

Logic police.

Since when has sacrificing offensive attacks = allowing somebody to grab your armor without hindrance?

Oh, and since nobody else has brought it up, "Threatening" does have something to do with knowledge of the opponent, since in 3.5 if you are invisible you don't draw aoo's unless your opponent can see invisible.