You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
The wording may not be perfect, but 'can execute an attack of opportunity' means the same as 'threaten'. You may threaten all squares adjacent to you, but total concealment gives a creature within a threatened square immunity to that.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording may not be perfect, but 'can execute an attack of opportunity' means the same as 'threaten'.
Not really.
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
You must threaten in order to make an attack of opportunity. If you can make a melee attack into that square, you still threaten, even if you can't make an AoO.
Blind people can threaten.
Invisible people can threaten.
People in dark rooms can threaten.
Confused people can threaten.
Flat-footed people can threaten.
Grappled people can threaten.
None of those people (except the invisible ones) can make attacks of opportunity, yet all of them can threaten if they're armed, and thus all of them can provide a flanking bonus if positioned properly.
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
Being able to make an AoO is dependent on threatening, it's not the other way around.
|
Flanking is something that people do but the bonus to hit comes from the opponents inability to react to multiple threats in opposite directions. So as long as the Flankee is aware of both threats the flanking bonus should be applied, at least that's how it registers in my head.
On a related side note if you were being flank-banged by a BBE Rogue and a slew of mooks could you just completely ignore the mooks, flat footed against them I supppose, and focus on the rogue to deny him his Sneak Attack? Seems cheesy (mechanics wise) but sensible otherwise.
OK, so RAW says that they do threaten while in darkness, and they should have gotten the flanking bonus, correct?
Yeah.
Many people interpret "can make a melee attack" to mean "could make a melee attack, if it was that character's turn, but with all the same conditions" which would mean you still threaten even if you've taken all of your AoOs that round, but you don't threaten if you're stunned, for example (even if the stunned condition would be resolved at the start of your next turn).
Nothing in the rules suggests that the defender must be able to perceive and react to the creatures threatening it.
Defender awareness has nothing to do with flanking, so far as I can tell.
I still think I'm right, but I can see Grick's side as well.
The problem is that there is no definition for threaten. In my mind if you can't see the target, you don't threaten them. After all, flanking requires that you threaten a creature, not a square.
|
Flanking is something that people do but the bonus to hit comes from the opponents inability to react to multiple threats in opposite directions. So as long as the Flankee is aware of both threats the flanking bonus should be applied, at least that's how it registers in my head.
On a related side note if you were being flank-banged by a BBE Rogue and a slew of mooks could you just completely ignore the mooks, flat footed against them I supppose, and focus on the rogue to deny him his Sneak Attack? Seems cheesy (mechanics wise) but sensible otherwise.
There are no mechanics for that. Furthermore, if you could, that slew of mooks would now be fine to start aid another grappling you, no attack of opportunity required.
If you can't take that attack of opportunity then you do not threaten the square.
Not true. If I have "used up" all my allowed attacks of opportunity because I don't have Combat Reflexes and/or a lousy dex, I still threaten the squares that I could attack into if it were my turn despite not being able to AoO into them.
Grick: Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
If you can not make an attack of opportunity, then you can not make an attack into a square when it is not your turn.
The text "even when it is not your turn" means that you threaten those squares even when it is not your turn.
An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
If you can't take that attack of opportunity then you do not threaten the square.
You can't make an AoO if you don't threaten the square. By basing whether you threaten the square on whether you can make an AoO, you've got a recursive definition.
Confused people can threaten, if they can act normally.
Flat-footed people do not threaten.
These two may be correct, using the 'if it was your turn' interpretation. The confused condition might prevent making a melee attack, so it might prevent threat. The flat-footed condition prevents taking actions, so if that condition was still active on your turn, then you couldn't make a melee attack.
Blind people, grappled people, and people in a dark room that cannot see can all make melee attacks on their turns, and thus all of them can threaten, despite not being able to make attacks of opportunity.
So if you are blind you can't attack people, you can attack squares. Therefore you do not threaten.
If you can make a melee attack into that square, you threaten it. That's the definition of Threatened Squares. ("You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.")
Because you threaten that square, you threaten everything in that square. ("Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).")
Since you threaten everything in that square, you can provide a flanking bonus for someone making a melee attack on the opposite side. ("When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.")
If you cast a spell next to a blind person, it does not provoke an attack of opportunity, because you do not threaten the square.
Whether or not you threaten the blind person has no bearing on whether or not you provoke by casting a spell.
If you cast a spell next to a blind person, and the blind person threatens your square, you provoke an attack of opportunity. The blind person can't actually make that attack of opportunity, because he's blind. That doesn't mean you don't provoke.
How is this concept even a debate?
Because people seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between threatening, provoking, and taking attacks of opportunity.
If you cast a spell next to a blind person, it does not provoke an attack of opportunity, because you do not threaten the square.Whether or not you threaten the blind person has no bearing on whether or not you provoke by casting a spell.
If you cast a spell next to a blind person, and the blind person threatens your square, you provoke an attack of opportunity. The blind person can't actually make that attack of opportunity, because he's blind. That doesn't mean you don't provoke. Emphasis, Mine.
Wait, why is this?
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
I see nothing under the blinded condition which prohibits a character from making an attack of opportunity. Where is this limitation coming from?
I'm particularily interested in this discussion as I have a character who will gain blind-sense 30 feet (through the Dragon Disciple prestige class) and blind-fight next level and we have a visual illusion based caster in our group, so it will become a somewhat regular tactic for my character to close his eyes, meaning that I'll be granting total concealment. We also have a rogue in the group, so I'm trying to brush up on the rules to make sure I can still flank for him while running around with my eyes closed (which, according to the rules, I can.)
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
|
I know this has more to do with rules than interpretation, but as I imagine it, you can't see a person with total concealment to respond to their actions, hence no attack of opportunity.
The concealed person does have to worry about you swinging a sword about, even if there is a good chance you will miss, thus they have to worry about the squares you threaten.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just to some up the line of reasoning I'm seeing here, and add in the appropriate rules text...
Quote 1:
"Attacks of Opportunity
"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
- Everything includes creatures, establishing how a character threatens other characters.
Quote 2:
"Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
- This just directs readers to read up on Total Concealment.
Quote 3:
"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
- This establishes how creatures that are opponents, which in quote 1 were included in the everything threatened, are no longer part of the everything.
Quote 4:
"Flanking
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
"When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
"Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
"Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent."
- This establishes that the creature (the defender) and not the square must be threatened.
Summary: There are two ways to try to interpret this...
Following the intent: A blind create does not threaten because he cannot see the lapses in defense and react to them.
The literal: A blind character threatens squares and not characters; and thus cannot flank because only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
In the case of Necronus's example, I would try explaining it as so... When creature B reacts to creature A's attacks on the square, creature C could in turn react to creature B's lapse in defense, granting creature A a +2 bonus. When creature B reacts to creature C's attack, creature A, being blind, did not see creature B's lapse in defense and react.
Coming back to the original post...
Quote 5: "The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen."
This does not establish a way around either the intent nor around the literal 'threatening the defender'.
Well... That's my two cents.
This establishes how creatures that are opponents, which in quote 1 were included in the everything threatened, are no longer part of the everything.
I don't see why.
You can make an attack into that square, so you threaten that square, so you threaten the creature. You can't attack that creature, but you still threaten it, because threatening is not about targeting, it's about being able to attack into a square.
Not only does Total Concealment not say you don't threaten, you specifically must be able to threaten because it says you can make an attack into that square.
If you fail your save against a sanctuary spell, you can't attack that creature. You still threaten it, because you can make an attack into the square it occupies.
You threaten because you can attack the square, not necessarily the creature itself.
Whether you can attack the actual creature will determine if you can make an attack of opportunity, but it does not determine if the creature provokes or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).
Yes, generally that's true. But sometimes you threaten squares that are not adjacent to you (reach 10'+) and sometimes you don't threaten adjacent squares (reach 0').
in general terms you threaten a square if when a person does an action, then that will provoke an attack of opportunity.
You're trying to say that threatening is defined by being able to take an attack of opportunity, but you can only take an attack of opportunity if you threaten, which you can only do if you can take an attack of opportunity, which you can only do if you threaten, and so on.
Threatening is if you can make a melee attack into that square. Not a melee attack of opportunity, just an attack.
If someone has sanctuary up, then you threaten them until you attack and fail the save, then you no longer threaten them.
Wrong, you can make a melee attack into that square, so you threaten that square, including everything in that square.
Unless there is a FAQ, then you are arguing over language that thrikreed already explained to you in length.
thrikreed was wrong. He was trying to use the Total Concealment rules to redefine what threatening is. Those rules don't do that.
In order to make an attack of opportunity, the opponent must first provoke. The opponent only provokes by taking a provoking action in a threatened square. You must be able to determine if the square is threatened before you can determine if the foe provokes. And the foe must provoke before you are able to take an attack of opportunity. Therefore, you cannot base whether or not you threaten on whether or not you can take an AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are saying that you threaten the squares, but just because you threaten the squares doesn't mean you can take attacks of opportunity or provide a flanking bonus because "Threatening the Square" is not the same as "Threatening the creature".
No, but you're close.
You threaten the square, thus you threaten everything in that square, thus you threaten the creature, thus you can provide flanking.
That doesn't mean you can make an attack of opportunity if the creature in that square provokes.
It also doesn't depend on whether you can make an attack of opportunity if the creature in that square provokes.
Or you genuinely don't see how this all goes together and you genuinely don't understand how Thrikreed's logical argument proves Blindness and Sanctuary prevent flanking
His argument hinges on Total Concealment saying you can't attack the creature.
That doesn't change the definition of threatening. You still threaten because, by definition, you can attack into that square.
So any conclusion based on Total Concealment changing what threatening means is invalid, because Total Concealment doesn't change what threatening means.
Example time.
Bob is fighting orcs with his longsword. An enemy orc wizard walks up adjacent to Bob, and begins casting fireball, and chooses not to cast defensively. How do you determine if the orc wizard provokes?
Using my interpretation:
1) Bob can make a melee attack into that adjacent square, because he's armed, and he's a medium creature, and he's not stunned or flat-footed or anything.
2) Given the definition of threatening in the rules, we know that because Bob can make a melee attack into that square, he threatens that square.
3) Since the orc wizard performed a distracting act (casting a spell) in a threatened square, he provokes.
4) Bob is allowed to take an attack of opportunity on the orc wizard.
Using your interpretation:
1) Bob can make a melee attack into that adjacent square, because he's armed, and he's a medium creature, and he's not stunned or flat-footed or anything.
2) Everything breaks. Because you've decided that Bob doesn't threaten unless he can make an attack of opportunity, we can never know if bob threatens, because we can't determine if the orc wizard provoked, because we don't know if the orc wizard is in a threatened square or not.
To provide a flanking bonus, you must determine if you threaten the defender.
Threatened Squares are all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Your argument is:
Threatened Creatures are all creatures at which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Yes?
And your reasoning for creating that definition is that you threaten a square because you can attack (into) it, thus you threaten a creature because you can attack it.
Yes?
You are incorrect in your assertion that threatening a square is the only requirement that matters.
Attacks of Opportunity: "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
Second, you must threaten the creature. You must be able to attack the creature to threaten it. If you have no means of attacking the creature, then that creature is not threatened by you.
Citation needed.
First you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from someone that can not attack you.
Attacks of Opportunity: "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
Second you only threaten a square if you can attack into the square even when it is not your turn.
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Read this sentence: "You can pick apples in the orchard, even after dark."
That doesn't mean that you must be able to pick apples after dark in order to pick apples at all, it's just telling you that you can also pick apples after dark, in addition to every other time.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. This is true even when it is not your turn.
Grick has the right of this.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)...
Nothing in here says you must know there is a creature in a square to threaten the square. It is plain and simple - could you make a melee attack into the square? If yes then it is threatened by you. There are no other qualifiers on that.
...An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
When does an enemy provoke? When it takes certain actions while in a square you threaten. Nothing in here about you being able to attack the creature or not, only that you must threaten the square that it is in.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
That whole part about generally threatening all adjacent squares... here is a spelled out exception to it. If an ability, feat, or piece of equipment calls out an exception to the general case then there is an exception. If they do not call out an exception to it then there is no exception. Being blind does not call out an exception to which squares you can threaten. Being invisible doesn't call out an exception to which squares someone looking for you threatens. Having sanctuary doesn't call out any exceptions to threatened squares either.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Moving out of a threatened square provokes. Nothing about moving unless you are invisible, or unless the opponent is blind. Threatened square? Yes. You moved out of it? Yes. Then you provoked. Again they list specific exceptions - 5' step or withdraw action. Again any feat, ability, or equipment that modifies this general rule has to call it out as an exception for it to be an exception.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
This is the whole gammit of casting a spell, standing up from prone, making a ranged attack, etc. etc. There are various feats and equipment that prevent the AoO from triggering in these scenarios. But again these are exceptions called out specifically. If no exception is called out the general case applies. Again being invisible or the person threatening being blind do not call out any exceptions here.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You cannot directly attack an opponent with total concealment. This doesn't mean you can't try to land a blow on them - just swing wildly with your sword in the location you think he is and you might get lucky. No mention here though of that changing whether the guy with the sword threatens the square or not. He does threaten it as per previously quoted rules.
In what universe does a person believe they threaten someone when they can not attack them?
If a guy was blindfolded and standing next to you, and wildly swinging a great axe in your direction, would you feel threatened?
Can he purposely target you? No. Does that mean you can't have your head lopped off just the same? No - you most certainly could be decapitated. You are therefore threatened.
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Ah look, here is an exception to the general rule of being able to make an attack of opportunity against someone in a square you threaten. If you cannot see the target, you cannot take the AoO - nice and clearly spelled out for us.
Note that it doesn't say anything about you no longer threatening the square he is in - you still do threaten the square. Note also that nothing mentioned here about whether he provokes or not. He still provokes, you just can't take advantage of it. If your buddy can see him but you can't, your buddy gets to take the AoO on him.
Just like if you've used your AoO for the round, he still provokes, you just can't take advantage of it.
Under your reasoning necronus, if an opponent uses his AoO (assuming no combat reflexes or other ability gives him additional AoO's per round) then he no longer threatens any squares next to him till his next turn and his AoO becomes available again. Under that reasoning he suddenly stops flanking anyone he had been flanking. But the rules simply do not support this idea.
I'm tipping towards the other side of the issue at this point (towards allowing flanking in more circumstances.
Necronus… there is nothing under the Blind condition that prevents you from making a standard attack. You suffer from total concealment (50% miss chance) and cannot make attacks of opportunity as a result, and you have to guess which square your target is in - but you can still swing a weapon in that direction and attempt to hit something. Same goes for attacking an invisible creature.
Sanctuary is a different circumstance entirely, and I agree with you there. If you are prevented from making aggressive actions toward a creature, you probably cannot flank it. That goes counter to the spirit of the rules (IMO) if not the facts. That 'Generally' bit was likely put into the text to cover situations like sanctuary.
Now that I've had more time to think about it… I have to go with Grick's interpretation (save for the bit about sanctuary). If threatening is tied to attacks of opportunity, then simple cover, such as a small column (+4 AC) would prevent flanking, since it already prevents attacks of opportunity. I've never run it like that.
No, it doesn't really clear anything up.
Being forbidden to attack a person because you can't see them doesn't change anything. Flanking is based on whether you threaten a square, not based on whether you can purposefully target a individual.
Just because I can't specifically pick you out as a target doesn't mean my actions cannot result in your death or injury - and that is what threatening is all about. If I am in a position where I could inflict harm on you, either by intention (direct attack) or luck (wild swing) then you have to take steps to avoid that possibility of injury and thus have your attention divided to both sides of you at once (which is what the flanking rules are emulating).
This is easily illustrated through any number of possible examples (of which I'll give one):
You are hiding in a dark room.
Someone enters holding a machine gun, they do not know where in the room you are at.
They spray the entire room with bullets.
There is a chance you just got shot, despite them being 'forbidden' from pointing the gun straight at you.
The smart thing would have been for you to have vacated the room, because in the above scenario the threat of them killing you is still a very real possibility - even though they are 'forbidden' from targeting just you.
Blinded is a condition that prevents you from attacking when it is not your turn.
If you can not attack when it is not your turn, you can not threaten.
Wrong, blinded is a condition that prevents you from taking an AoO - and only by virtue of blinded granting opponents total concealment from you. If you were blinded, but had blindsense, you could still take the AoO.
I'm blinded. I ready an action to attack the space in front of me if I hear anything. On someone else's turn they make a noise. I hear it. I'm still blind. Do I get to make my attack? Of course - even though it is not my turn.
Additional point. You agree that even if you are blinded you can make attacks on your turn. What happens if someone provokes an AoO on your turn (there are cases where this can happen). Are you currently threatening them or not? It is your turn, you can make attacks, would an ally opposite you get to take an AoO with flanking bonuses against the opponent?
Threaten doesn't give you the ability to act when it is not your turn,...
Correct.
...it instead requires that you CAN attack when it is not your turn.
Incorrect. Threaten is merely a condition based upon "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". As already pointed out to you the "even when it is not your turn" is in reference to when those squares are threatened. You threaten them regardless of whether it is your turn or not IF they are in melee reach of your current weapon and your current status does not prevent you from attacking with that weapon (not attacking a specific target - but merely attacking into the given square).
The fact that threatening rules show up under the section on AoO is not a limitation to when threatening matters or how it works. Flanking is not listed under the section on AoO's, but says the following:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
They could have reposted the threatening rules under flanking, but why, the rules are already printed elsewhere. Sometimes you just have to connect the dots.
Again, point out ANYWHERE in the rules on threatening where being blinded is an exception to threatening and you'll make your point.
EDIT: Removed references to the deleted post.
EDIT2: Fixed some spelling and grammar issues.
|
|
You keep referring to not being able to attack when its not your turn.
Under normal circumstances nobody can attack when its not their turn.
Attack of opportunity are different, but linked to threatened squares.
By your logic, a person who has already taken their attack of opportunity that round would not threaten, as they can no longer attack when its not their turn.
Threatened Squares are linked to Attacks of Opportunity, not the other way around. This is important, because Threatened Squares only exist in Attacks of Opportunity.
This is the source of your logical error. You've started with a false premise.
This is a VERY recent post by Sean K Reynolds, the relevant part to this discussion is
You shouldn't use the name of a chapter to make rules decisions. Chapter names are not rules text.
This would (should) also apply to heading text. In this case the heading of AoO's. Threatening is discussed under AoO's, but that is not the only place threatening is relevant, and is not a ruling on how threatening works or requirement for how threatening works (see my previous reference to flanking where threatening is relevant). Threatening a square is a self-contained rule, that is most often used in association with making AoO's, but frequently used in association with flanking, and probably sometimes associated with other actions as well.
Step One, Attack of Opportunity: this is the title of the section and what gives you the ability to threaten squares and make attacks of opportunity
Incorrect application of heading text to makes rules decision. Threatened shows up here because you cannot make an AoO if you cannot threaten. For whatever reason they decided in the layout of the book that this was an appropriate place to describe what it means to threaten. It is NOT a requirement to be able to AoO to threaten. It is a requirement that you must threaten to be able to AoO. A is a requirement for B does not necessarily mean B is a requirement for A.
Threatens ONLY requirement is that you be able to make attacks into a square. If given the current conditions, if it were your turn, then if you could make a normal attack into that square then you threaten it. The various conditions of dead, paralyzed, unconscious, etc all prevent you from making attacks period. If you have any of those conditions you do not threaten because you cannot make any kind of attack - AoO or otherwise.
Step Three, Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Moving and Performing a distracting action are the most common ways of provoking and they must be done in a threatened square to get an attack of opportunity.
Now that the rules have described what it means to take an AoO (catch someone while their focus is diverted to another task), and defined what it means to threaten (be able to attack into a square either on your turn or otherwise) we can define under what conditions an AoO occurs.
1) What actions are distracting - moving and a whole subset of other things - casting spells, standing up, using a ranged weapon, etc.
2) You must threaten the square the person taking the distracting action is in.
"You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment" and "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
Both the pieces you quoted are true. You cannot take an AoO in these cases. It says nothing about whether you threaten the squares said opponent is in or not - only that you cannot make an AoO against said concealed component. It is simply an exception to the the base rule that to make an AoO you must 1) have your opponent take a distracting action, 2) be in a square that you threaten.
What I don't understand is everyone seems to be arguing that you can threaten something that you don't even know is there.
You've misunderstood what we are arguing. This is not what we (or at least I) am arguing. It is perfectly possible that you know an invisible person is somewhere in the room. It may be that my ally has true seeing going and knows exactly where the opponent is at and I'm merely watching where my ally is swinging his blade at and I'm following suit. I still can't take an AoO against the opponent if he provoke per total concealment rules, but I can threaten the person by making stabbing motions in their general direction. If neither me nor my ally knows there is someone in the room, then why we do we even have our blades drawn? Why are we randomly swinging them about in the air? The whole idea of threatening, flanking, AoO's already implies a combat situation. Characters who are completely oblivious to a combat aren't really a part of the combat.
You want me to believe that even though you are unaware of danger, you can still threaten.
So if I'm a monk. I am standing next to a wizard with Greater Invisibility, and see invisibility up. Next to him is a rogue with see invisibility and and Greater Invisibility. They are in a zone of Silence, but I am not.
This is a very contrived circumstance. If you had a weapon out, and wanted to be a RAW purist, then yes you still threaten. Personally as a GM I'd say, "not a chance" - but this is a rules (hence RAW) discussion. RAW should ALWAYS be tempered by GM adjudication - but the rules forum doesn't care about that. But as a GM if I have some inkling there are two people fighting next to me - and I am trying to take an active part in said invisible fight - I threaten when the conditions for threatening (being able to attack into an adjacent space) apply. And the invisible combatants have to worry that at any moment I might randomly stab my sword in their direction. (As a GM, if the rogue were my buddy and he switched places with the mage, I'd even rule the mage gets me as a flanking partner against my buddy rogue in this scenario).