While total defensive do you threaten adjacent squares? Flank?

[LokiDR]

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.

While that is technically true, look at the various abilies that elimate flanking, such as "all around sight". A monster that can look in all directions at the same time is not flankable. Why, if defender's perception is not an issue, is flanking defeated by how the defender sees?

I believe in the past we have talked about an invisible attacker and it providing flanking bonuses. Technically, the invisible attacker who doesn't even attack will provide flanking bonuses. In the abstraction of the game, this is counter-intuitive.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While that is technically true, look at the various abilies that elimate flanking, such as "all around sight". A monster that can look in all directions at the same time is not flankable. Why, if defender's perception is not an issue, is flanking defeated by how the defender sees?

Because the ability provides that benefit.

Note that other traits that prevent flanking do so beacuse the creature has no discernible front or rear. Nothing to do with the defender's perceptions - it has, in this case, to do with the attackers being unable to discern.

The conditions for flanking are clear. If you fulfil those conditions, you are flanking... unless the defender has an ability that prevents it.

-Hyp.

 

[Lamoni]

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

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

I read this differently than most I guess. To me it says that you can attack in melee without having to move first. Someone who is taking the full defensive action doesn't need to move before making a melee attack. Of course this brings up the problem with holding a ranged weapon. Technically you could change to a melee weapon and attack without moving first if you are next to an opponent. Fortunately the rules still cover this by saying that you don't threaten with a ranged weapon or while unarmed (without a feat or special ability). This works for me, is what is written in the rules (although it can obviously be interpreted differently) and it makes much more sense to not change the outcome of the round when everyone does the same action, based on whether the rogue rolls a higher initiative than the cleric... since before declaring the defensive action you are threatening the guy beside you just fine. You also don't have to worry about not providing flanking once you run out of your AoO's.

 

[irdeggman]

This works for me, is what is written in the rules (although it can obviously be interpreted differently) and it makes much more sense to not change the outcome of the round when everyone does the same action, based on whether the rogue rolls a higher initiative than the cleric... since before declaring the defensive action you are threatening the guy beside you just fine. You also don't have to worry about not providing flanking once you run out of your AoO's.

And I think that is where the issue comes into play. A character hasn't committed to anything until his turn in the initiative order.

Using the discussion above if a character is doing total defense then from that point on he provides no flanking bonus. What this does is force the DM (and all players) to keep details down to the initiative order and who is doing what and how this affects everyone else on the battle field, etc. This seems totally contrary to the intent of 3.5 - which was to simplify things as much as possible and not make them more detail oriented. As has been pointed D&D combat is abstract - so applying detailed rules/book keeping is totally contrary to this.