While total defensive do you threaten adjacent squares? Flank?

[two]

It is stupid

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.])

The reason many people resist this line of reasoning which, as far as the rules go, is valid, is because the result is simply batty.

Refer to my previous post.

Something intended to INCREASE a PC's defenses should not strip away the PC's ability to defend against a simple grapple, a trip, a sunder, being bull rushed, etc.

Get it? Total defense = worse defense = huh? = looking at rules to see if they really mean what they say = do they really? = maybe they don't = post on ENWorld = confusion = clarification = question of confusion = etc...

 

[ARandomGod]

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.])

Actually, you can't say that the opposite is true... at least not in reference to my statement, at least not without being the person (or on the committee) that wrote the rules.

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

I think that the spirit is the opposite of what you say is fact. Now, I do see and understand how your line of reasoning can lead to your claim of fact, but I also see that fact as patently absurd... Hence my statement that I believe the the rule was meant to keep the person using the total defence option as a flanker.

And as an example I stated that if every opposition can know that I'm using total defense when I'm using it, I demand equal rights and I must be told whenever I consider using total defence if I will be attacked in the round that I'm potentially going to be using total defense. Thereby allowing me to decide whether or not to use that option based on facts of the moment. THAT makes the ruling that total defense stops you from flanking a fair one.

Or to say, the rules are designed as simple rules, so that order can be had. It's there as an alternative to a constant parry/thrust set of rules. It states right in the description of the attack round that each round represents several exchanges. And if a person can tell that I'm not going to attack in the next six seconds with an accuracy that allows him to ignore me as if I were not a flanker, then I should be able to either 1) change my mind and hit him flatfooted for ignoring me 2) or know before I declare myself "fighting total defensive" or not that I definitely will be subject to an attack in that six seconds, or that I won't. I'd be willing to go with that as an option. But the rule that the opponent can "know" that I'm not going to actively attack in the next six seconds represents my fighting opponents that are simply too omniscient for me to agree.

 

[ForceUser]

I don't agree with your interpretation. Frankly, I think it's nuts. I will never run it that way in my game unless the powers that be specifically come out and say your logic is correct.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I hate to open this can of worms, but it seems warranted. Note that some of the statements below are not fact, but personal visualization. I'm not sure any of this has been clarified by the Powers that Be.

First, consider that an AoO is not a calculated, chosen strike. Rather, the attacker is continually making strikes into any square around him that contains an enemy. These strikes are normally dodged or parried to no effect, but the strikes are there. Then, when the defender drops his guard (by provoking an AoO), one of these strikes that would have ordinarily been blocked suddenly gains a real chance of breaking through the defender's defenses. Thus, an extra attack roll.

From the AoO specificity, consider that this is what threatening in general is. It isn't an attacker standing beside a defender and looking like he could strike the defender. It's the attacker standing beside the defender and continually striking at him. These common exchanges are not strong enough to actually break through the defender's defenses, but they are strikes nevertheless. They require the defender's attention to not become actual attacks with a chance of doing damage. Hence, a defender that is flanked is blocking and parrying casual attacks from either side, and is thus less able to defend against earnest attacks (which therefore receive a +2).

Finally, consider Total Defense. In order to parry a greater number of attacks, you are shifting the focus of your actions. You are no longer making attacks at nearby enemies, but instead focusing solely on preventing any attacks from hitting you. And since you aren't striking out at foes nearby, you aren't threatening them.

if every opposition can know that I'm using total defense when I'm using it, I demand equal rights and I must be told whenever I consider using total defence if I will be attacked in the round that I'm potentially going to be using total defense. Thereby allowing me to decide whether or not to use that option based on facts of the moment. THAT makes the ruling that total defense stops you from flanking a fair one.

In my interpretation, fair has nothing to do with it. Total Defense is meant to be a defensive maneuver. In order to shift one's focus to defense, one loses out on offensive capability. This includes the abstract combat exchanges that allow one to threaten and flank. You claim that the attacker shouldn't know that the defender isn't going to attack him, but the fact of the matter is, the defender stops attacking him for the round. The attacker is going to notice that. Meanwhile, the attacker continues to make stabs at the defender whenever the defender is within range, even if he doesn't direct any of his serious offensive maneuvers (attack rolls) in his direction.

Again, the above comments rely on the acceptance of my view on what AoOs and threatening actually represent. There are certainly other views on what they are meant to be, and there have been countless threads on it. I don't mean to open up that can of worms. I'm just offering a viewpoint that allows for Total Defense to make sense within the framework of the other rules.

 

[ARandomGod]

I don't agree with your interpretation. Frankly, I think it's nuts. I will never run it that way in my game unless the powers that be specifically come out and say your logic is correct.

I thought that was assumed. I'm not bothered by people having different interpretations.

Wait, run it which way, with the flanking bonus maintained or with giving both sides of the equation an equal amount of prescience?

 

[AuraSeer]

But the rule that the opponent can "know" that I'm not going to actively attack in the next six seconds represents my fighting opponents that are simply too omniscient for me to agree.

Your opponent doesn't need some omniscient future sense to see that you aren't about to attack. All he has to do is glance at you. He'll see that your weapon is being held in a totally defensive way, and realize that you're not in a position to attack him. That means he can take his attention away from you for a few seconds (or in game terms, one round) and concentrate on another enemy.

Even IRL, a purely defensive stance is very obvious. You're basically hiding behind your weapon instead of using it to menace a target. It's good for defense, but attacking is effectively impossible, and your opponent knows that just by looking at you. Until you change your stance (and telegraph your intention to perhaps attack in the near future), no one has a reason to treat you as a threat, because you're not one.

 

[ARandomGod]

I'm just offering a viewpoint that allows for Total Defense to make sense within the framework of the other rules.

I like that viewpoint as well as an interpretation of why total defense wouldn't allow you to be a flanker. In fact, I'd say that's a pretty strong case when stating that RAW says you can't. And, as RAW doesn't actually say anything one way or the other, that's the only way to go with it.

On the other hand, that potential interpretation of the rules is already out there, so the other side needs to be looked at.

You claim that the attacker shouldn't know that the defender isn't going to attack him, but the fact of the matter is, the defender stops attacking him for the round. The attacker is going to notice that.

A round is only six seconds, so I don't think that an attacker necessarily will. And, in the same vein (and why I stated that I would request that I know prior to taking total defense if I'll be attacked), if the opponent labeled attacker ignored the opponent labeled defender completely (viewed as not a threat), that defender simply wouldn't be in total defense mode. Quite the opposite, in fact, he'd practically be attacking as if invisible.

Or to say, in agreement, if the attacker is going to notice that the defender isn't making any attacks, the defender is just as likely to notice the shift in attack stance that would allow the attacker to be no longer considered flanked. At the very least the total defense person who was no longer flanking the opponent should get a surprise attack next round due to the fact that the "attacker" is ignoring him as if he were not a threat!

So it really all depends on what you view flanking as. And what you view fighting defensively as. I view being flanked as having a threatening opponent on either side. I view fighting defensively as fighting an attacker in a manner that will not contain any offense, that won't go for any openings... but it's done because you're feeling threatened in the first place.

Thinking of game interpretations where that definition of fighting defensively is not the case leads me to ask if I can hold my staff out all the time and always be fighting defensively against any future potential attack. That should have the added bonus of preventing flatfootedness, as you're constantly in fight mode. Who needs uncanny dodge! I fight defensively against the darkness!!

 

[ForceUser]

I thought that was assumed. I'm not bothered by people having different interpretations.

Wait, run it which way, with the flanking bonus maintained or with giving both sides of the equation an equal amount of prescience?

IMC, a person who takes the total defense action will neither threaten adjacent spaces nor provide a flanking bonus to allies, nor will they be allowed to take an attack of opportunity while engaging in total defense. I believe that this is both in the spirit and by the letter of the rules as written.

 

[ARandomGod]

Your opponent doesn't need some omniscient future sense to see that you aren't about to attack. All he has to do is glance at you. He'll see that your weapon is being held in a totally defensive way, and realize that you're not in a position to attack him. That means he can take his attention away from you for a few seconds (or in game terms, one round) and concentrate on another enemy.

Even IRL, a purely defensive stance is very obvious. You're basically hiding behind your weapon instead of using it to menace a target. It's good for defense, but attacking is effectively impossible, and your opponent knows that just by looking at you. Until you change your stance (and telegraph your intention to perhaps attack in the near future), no one has a reason to treat you as a threat, because you're not one.

Actually, that's my reasoning behind why the total defensive fighter would still be a flanker. He can look at you and see that you're not currently attacking... he has to look to see this.

He can then take his attention away. Wait, if he does this then can't you just stab him flatfooted? He did, as you just implied, taked his attention away. Announced that he's not going to make any defense against you at all? The answer, no, you cannot do this because you've announced that for the next six seconds you won't. However, you have to commit in six second intervals in the game because it is indeed a game, and needs to be broken up into intervals. Therefore if he can glance and tell you've not going to attack, and therefore doesn't need to be glancing the entire round to see if you've ready to move from defense to attack, then you should be granted a similiar amount of preknowledge of time and know whether or not you need to commit that time to defence. Or to say, it really is an unrealistic amount of prescience for him to know that you're not going to do anything for six seconds, even if you can't.

Sure, IRL a defensive stance is obvious. AND in real life if you ignored a professional swordsman for six seconds because of the way he was standing in a fight you would end up very, very dead. It doesn't take a full six seconds to decide that you're being ignored and cut out the other guy's kidneys.

Now, in game terms you should go from defensive stance to offensive stance to defensive stance and back several times in the six seconds that makes up a round. All I'm saying is that the actual characters in the game shouldn't know that you've set aside this six seconds to not even attempt a real attack. They don't "know" that you're in total defense, it looks to them like any other stance, you just for some reason never went into an offensive stance that turn, which allowed for even an higher defense bonus.

 

[atom crash]

how does your opponent know that you aren't trying to fake him out, make him take his attention off you just long enough for you to stick your sword through his kidneys while he tries to hack at your friend? or even that you've raised your shield to fake him out only so you can bash him with it when he turns his back.

if (total defensive = not flanking), merely taking the total defensive action in such a situation almost assures that you won't be the subject of an attack that round. "oh, he's not gonna attack me so i better focus on the guy who is attacking me."

standing in an adjacent square with a weapon seems to be enough to threaten an area. threaten refers to the ability to attack into a space. you have the ability to attack into the space (i.e. you have a weapon), however, the action you take for the next six seconds precludes you from making that attack.

the danger i see in this case if that if a character is not flanking when defending and your enemy knows this and thus disregards you, the next progression is to say that "since he knows i'm no longer a threat i'm going to be able to slice him in the kidneys while his back is turned in six seconds. i'll just attack and defend, attack and defend and keep getting some crazy bonuses." (incidentally, you can do this type of thing with a feint.)

no, no, no, the other side will argue, that's absurd. your opponent will look back and see that you're a threat again. you weren't flanking him six seconds ago, but know you are and he is aware of you. "so, you mean i wasn't flanking for six seconds then i am again? that makes no sense whatsoever. now i'm flanking. now i'm not."

then again, it's hard to tell what the designers intended. consider this: two attackers have to be on opposite sides in order to flank, by the rules. like you wouldn't split a person's attention by having two attackers come from any different directions. heck, two combatants coming from the same direction would likely split a person's attention. "whew, it's a good thing those two guys were only coming from the north and east, and not the north and south, or I'd have been in trouble for sure."

Edit: in the time it took to compose this post, ARandomGod posted much the same thing.