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="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1778448" data-attributes="member: 707">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification