While total defensive do you threaten adjacent squares? Flank?

[The Souljourner]

Just like to apologize... I never noticed that part in total defense about not being able to make attacks of opportunity. My bad.

-The Souljourner

 

[Methos of Aundair]

Originally posted by Amazing Dingo

In terms of the rules, you are correct...you cannot threaten a person while fighting defensively.

Throughout your entire post Dingo you are using “fighting defensively”, can I assume you mean total defensive? Since fighting defensively would make your statements false according to the rules.

Originally posted by 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.

You are correct, if you are referring to Dingo’s post I believe he meant total defensive in place of his stating of fighting defensively.

The rules for flanking do not state the bonus is granted by whether you feel you are threatened, but rather by “if” you are threatened. According to the glossary definition of threaten it is when you can make a melee attack during that round. While total defensive you can in no way make a melee attack (not including any outside feats/special abilities/whatever) nor able to make any AoO. Therefore you do not threaten and cannot flank.

By this same ruling if you use up all of your AoO in a round and someone else attempts to flank a creature later on in the initiative they would not get the flanking bonus since by the RAW you do not threaten them.

One point I would like to make, we are going by the RAW not logic or how we may think the flanked creature feels. If that was the case I would agree the creature would probably feel threatened, but we are not.

 

[SableWyvern]

I've seen this term "RAW" a lot recently, and never before a short while ago. Perhaps it really does mean an absolutely literal interpretation.

However, I think the spirit and intent is just as important in a strict rules discussion. I do not believe the description of Total Defence is meant to preclude providing a flanking bonus.

With Two's comment in mind, I would also allow AoOs against foes making attacks where the AoO can prevent a successful attack. That, however, I would definitely consider a House Rule.

 

[ARandomGod]

I've seen this term "RAW" a lot recently, and never before a short while ago. Perhaps it really does mean an absolutely literal interpretation.

However, I think the spirit and intent is just as important in a strict rules discussion. I do not believe the description of Total Defence is meant to preclude providing a flanking bonus.

With Two's comment in mind, I would also allow AoOs against foes making attacks where the AoO can prevent a successful attack. That, however, I would definitely consider a House Rule.

I also think that the spirit and intent of the rule was to continue providing flanking bonus.

After all, you *could* make an attack that round if you chose to, but you are choosing instead to defend yourself. Saying that this choice matters and that it affects the opponent is tantamount to saying the opponent can read your mind that you've chosen to take total defence, and unless you're giving the opponent actual mind reading powers I'd have to argue that if this "no flanking while in total defense" rule was effected everyone be allowed to know if a melee attack is going to be directed at them that round before stating if they want to go total defense or not. After all, if you can tell, so can I.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

ARandomGod...SableWyvern agrees with you.

 

[ARandomGod]

ARandomGod...SableWyvern agrees with you.

Ha! You're right. OK, delete "whereas" and add "also" in the first line, that should fix that.

You know, I read that twice before posting too. Somehow I missed the word "preclude" both times.

 

[irdeggman]

So a spellcaster standing in an adjacent square to an opponent doesn't threaten him (using the logic laid out above) unless he has a weapon out?

Or another way is that anyone can make an unarmed attack and is always considered threatening.

Then I guess this logic should apply all the time whether or not a character has any attacks left. Note that after a character has used up his normal allotment of attacks and AoO he can no longer be considered to threaten anyone in the normal sense since he cannot make anymore attacks that round. Again using the logic presented above.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or another way is that anyone can make an unarmed attack and is always considered threatening.

Except you don't threaten any squares with an unarmed attack if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

Throughout your entire post Dingo you are using “fighting defensively”, can I assume you mean total defensive? Since fighting defensively would make your statements false according to the rules.

My apologies on that one. You are right, I did mean to refer to that. Thank you for straightening that up. It was one of those nights where you get called in and are dying to stay awake. Thanks again.

And while the RAW does state that they are not threatened, I do similarly feel that the spirit of the rules fit more along the lines of threatening the flanked character, even in total defense.

(Yes, I got it right this time!)

 

[ForceUser]

I also think that the spirit and intent of the rule was to continue providing flanking bonus.

Actually, the opposite is true. You must be able to make an attack to be considered threatening, and you can't make attacks while executing the total defense action. It's not hard to understand. What is hard to understand (to my mind) is how people can argue that the opposite is true, when the text is clear (though, granted, not concise. You have to put it together: A [total defense allows no attacks] + B [one must be able to threaten to flank] + C [you don't threaten if you can't attack] + D [an AoO is an attack] = E [you can't provide a flanking bonus OR make an AoO while executing the total defense action.])