While total defensive do you threaten adjacent squares? Flank?

[LokiDR]

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...

No, actually, it makes a lot of sense.

When you use the total defense action you parry, duck, and weave. You get a dodge bonus to AC. You are harder to grab. This is an alternative to swinging your weapon around to try to keep attackers at bay.

Think of this situation in terms of football. The defender has the ball, the attacker wants to grab them. The defender has two choices: stiff arm the attacker and push them back or put all of his concentration in just avoiding them. Depending how strong of an arm the defender has, he might choose one or the other. He can't do both, there can only be one top priority.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Flanking, as defined in the Core Rules, has nothing to do with awareness on the part of the defender.

If you're making a melee attack, and a creature friendly to you and directly opposite threatens the same opponent, you and your ally are flanking that opponent.

He could be unconscious, and by the flanking rules as defined in the PHB, if your ally is in the right place, you get the +2 on your attack roll.

Whether the defender thinks you're dangerous or not is irrelevant to whether you can provide a flanking bonus. All that's important is "Are you in the right place?" and "Do you threaten that opponent?"

-Hyp.

 

[Methos of Aundair]

Though I can understand why people wish to discuss on how the opponent would believe he is threatened let me remind you the rules do not pertain to the opponents feelings. The rules state:

Quoted from the Player’s HB (page 153)

… if your opponent is threatened …

Let me also again quote the definition of threaten.

Quoted from the Player’s HB Glossary (page 314)

To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space.

By that definition when you use Total Defense (standard action: cannot attack) which allows no AoO (statement found under the description of TD) than you cannot make any melee attacks that round. Therefore during that round you cannot threaten.

I’ll be honest, when I first entered this discussion on the WizCo board I did not fully agree to all of these statements. It was only after researching this more I realized my own error. Rather than point out the truth of my statements I ask you all to do as I did and look into this a little bit further. Who knows, you may find something I didn’t that goes against me.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hypersmurf, Methos, I can see where you're comining from. Where we differ, I suppose, is that IMO, when a situation like this comes up, one must look at what the rule is trying to simulate. Threatening squares, in my very firm opinion, does relate to the defenders attitude and understanding. While the rules may not state this explicitly, it seems quite clear to me that this is what they represent. The rules represent things, they don't exist for their own benefit.

In the case of the unconscious flankee, I would not have hesitated to deny all flanking bonuses. The thought that flanking bonuses should apply against unconscious characters would never have even occured to me before this thread.

All that said, I shall iterate that I am beginning to understand your viewpoint better, even if I continue to disagree.

IMO, after looking at this thread, Total Defense should still allow AoOs, which I do not think would be unbalancing, and would certainly put this issue to rest. That, however, is most certainly not RAW.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

IMO, when a situation like this comes up, one must look at what the rule is trying to simulate. Threatening squares, in my very firm opinion, does relate to the defenders attitude and understanding. While the rules may not state this explicitly, it seems quite clear to me that this is what they represent.

But they don't have to represent that. Instead they can represent, as I mentioned above, the defender actually fending off attacks from the threatening character. If the defender doesn't have to fend of any attacks (because a foe is using Total Defense), then he can better defend against the guy on the other side of him. Likewise if the guy isn't actively trying to penetrate his foe's defenses (because he's concentrating on protecting himself), there are no random swings/thrusts to hit his foe when he drinks a potion.

 

[irdeggman]

Another issue with not providing a flanking bonus, based on those who say it is due to the character not being able to make an attack (hence not threatening). The same exact logic applies when a character has used up all of his available attacks in a round. His normal and total number of AoO available - after that any attack that his allies make would by rule have to be made without a flanking bonus. This is clearly against the spirit of the rules and this whole issue makes combat extremely cumbersome since the status of every combatent (as in does he have any attacks left) must be kept. This also goes against the spirit of the rules, which was to simplify combat.

Note that the rules do not say that a character does not threaten only that he can't make an attack. It is coming down to people trying to rule-lawyer what making an attack means.

 

[SableWyvern]

But they don't have to represent that. Instead they can represent, as I mentioned above, the defender actually fending off attacks from the threatening character. If the defender doesn't have to fend of any attacks (because a foe is using Total Defense), then he can better defend against the guy on the other side of him. Likewise if the guy isn't actively trying to penetrate his foe's defenses (because he's concentrating on protecting himself), there are no random swings/thrusts to hit his foe when he drinks a potion.

That is a valid argument, albeit one I don't like. The idea of characters, monsters and animals making constant, random swings/bites/bodyslams etc into all the area around them does not sit well with me. Especially when, for the system to work on that assumption, everyone who can threaten must be assumed to be doing so at all times.

Occasional narration indicating that a successful AoO from an NPC was attributed to lack of attentiveness and a random swing is fine. That as the default explanation for an AoO seems, to me, ludicrous. Your mileage obviously varies.

....

Ah. I see that I am not responding to you, but someone else. Thought I'd better check, just in case. Your earlier explanation is indeed one that works quite well, without being ludicrous. I still prefer my own interpretation by far, but am willing to concede yours is reasonable, consistent and potentially what was originally intended.

 

[Aaron2]

Never mind ...

 

[Methos of Aundair]

Originally posted by Aaron2

Can an unconscious character "make a melee attack"? I don't think so.

I believe Hypersmurf is meaning the opponent being flanked is the one who is unconscience. In other words, the unconscience opponent still can be flanked even though he isn't aware or worried about opponents on opposite sides of him. Basically this throws the whole "he's considered flanked because he is seperating his focus on opponents on opposite sides of him" debate. Since how can he become distracted when he is unconscience? An unconscience opponent can still be flanked.

 

[Nail]

An unconscience opponent can still be flanked.

Of course an opponent without morals can still be flanked. It happens to our blackguard all the time.

In fact, I demand that such a creature, one without the internal sense that urges him or her to do right rather than wrong, be flanked, attacked, and dropped. Immediately.