Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1778348" data-attributes="member: 17296">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.</blockquote>

Verification