(I'm sorry, I just had to slip in those lyrics at some point. :P)
Finally, something good came of this thread at last.
|
...unwritten component to threaten that implies you also have to be able to effect the target...
Perhaps a definition of what you think threatened means might help (in the common sense of the word, not the game defined term).
For me, threatened:
In danger of or at risk of being harmed.
The problem with that is any creature with DR greater than the highest damage multiplied by a critical hit... A creature with 15/adamantine being attacked by a peasant with a shortsword (1d6) and 13 Strength (+1) able to do 2d6+2 on a critical hit... the creature with DR is just not in danger of or at risk of being harmed.
I think it's a bit too limited to equate "threaten" to "able to inflict bodily harm"
A peasant could use the "aid another" action to give the guy on the opposite side of the creature a better chance to hit the enemy he couldn't hurt with his own attacks, for example. This is a threat that can't be ignored even if the creature wanted to.
Or he could pick the creature's pockets, steal its credit card and threaten his financial well being.
|
|
The problem with that is any creature with DR greater than the highest damage multiplied by a critical hit... A creature with 15/adamantine being attacked by a peasant with a shortsword (1d6) and 13 Strength (+1) able to do 2d6+2 on a critical hit... the creature with DR is just not in danger of or at risk of being harmed.
...unwritten component to threaten that implies you also have to be able to effect the target...
Perhaps a definition of what you think threatened means might help (in the common sense of the word, not the game defined term).
For me, threatened:
In danger of or at risk of being harmed.
Since I just gave myself paper cut, I think it pertinent to say that a person might feel in danger of or at risk of being harmed whenever there is paper around. Do I feel threatened by paper? Despite the fact it can harm me, the answer is no.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
If you are going to quote the rules, you should quote the complete rule. Removing words to state your case doesn't help your argument. Let me fix that last sentence for you (though you did at least recognize the missing component in your following statements).
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
So the very rule you quote to claim a blind person cannot attack, in the next half of the sentence says he can still attack.
Refer to my previous posts regarding how there is a one way dependency with threatening and AoO - they are still not synonymous. AoO requires targeting the person. Threatening requires targeting the square (and by virtue of it threatening all things in that square).
Round 1 goes to me.
Care to try again?
Your groupthink method of looking at this is one sided, and no matter how convincing I am, it is impossible to change a person's mind when they aren't open to new possibilities.
This is ill-founded presumption on your part. My purpose for perusing these boards is to learn (well that, and eating popcorn). I've been corrected on several things in the past. I accept it and move on.
Since I just gave myself paper cut, I think it pertinent to say that a person might feel in danger of or at risk of being harmed whenever there is paper around. Do I feel threatened by paper? Despite the fact it can harm me, the answer is no.
If the paper were awakened, and moving of its own volition towards you, would that change your feelings? Even though paper doesn't have eyes to see with?
Do I need to refine my definition of threatened to a context (the context we are both talking about) of creatures with weapons/claws/teeth?
The same challenge I gave to necronus is open to you - prove me wrong with the rules text.
Or he could pick the creature's pockets, steal its credit card and threaten his financial well being.
Well I wouldn't go so far as to say stealing his credit card would provide a flanking bonus to other people, but it is an amusing thought. :) I get a +2 to robbing you because you've already been robbed before.
|
|
I think it's a bit too limited to equate "threaten" to "able to inflict bodily harm"
A peasant could use the "aid another" action to give the guy on the opposite side of the creature a better chance to hit the enemy he couldn't hurt with his own attacks, for example. This is a threat that can't be ignored even if the creature wanted to.
Aid Another
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
Though it does say distracting or interfering, it does not say threatening anywhere in it.
Or he could pick the creature's pockets, steal its credit card and threaten his financial well being.
While I might feel very threatened by that; would a dragon, golem, or shadow? In addition, if the he you speak of lacked the improved unarmed strike and tried to do that; according to the rules he does not threaten.
Though it does say distracting or interfering, it does not say threatening anywhere in it.
But inflicting bodily harm through combat also doesn't say anything about threatening anywhere.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
So physical strikes that deal damage also don't seem to qualify as a threat.
You're stepping away from the rules when you attempt to clarify what it means to threaten. You can't suddenly swerve back to them when your clarification is challenged. Doing so, you run the risk of not making any sense at all anymore.
Since we're not near any kind of rule anymore when we assume that to threaten, one needs to be able to inflict bodily harm, I'll stay just as far from the rules when I defend my "aid another" counter: If someone was trying to attack me with a chainsaw, and someone else, even a peasant, was in a position to significantly help my assailant with his attempt to slice and dice me, I'd consider that person a threat.
|
|
Do I need to refine my definition of threatened to a context (the context we are both talking about) of creatures with weapons/claws/teeth?
Eh, give it a try.
The same challenge I gave to necronus is open to you - prove me wrong with the rules text.
I already have, you simply choose to ignore the proof. Giving me a challenge to present you with more proof, which you will in turn ignore would be futile.
However, feel free to prove the entirety of my position wrong with rules text.
|
|
Necronus, if there is a wall between you and the monster, then you are not in adjacent squares and therefore would not threaten. So your absurd attempt to punch holes in our argument is, itself, full of hole.
How about if the wall was only 4 ft tall? Or had a window in it? What if the attacker is an incorporeal creature? Where in the RAW is this defined that walls separate squares?
I actually think this is an interesting discussion. Perhaps it might help if the opposing views agreed to posit two or three examples each, and then the two (or more if there are more) differing approaches/sides/opinions breakdown how the examples play out, and why. Without concrete examples there's a lot of ifs/ands/buts/howevers/whatabouts.
|
I have already proved that threatening a square isn't enough to threaten a person.
No, you haven't. That is the point, wall banger.
Again and again, it has been pointed out to you...
- AoO and threatening a square is not connected, you only need to threaten a square to be able to make an AoO.
- If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square. That mean you threaten any within that square.
- Being blind does mean one would not get an AoO, but he still threatens the darn square.
- Blind allies would provide flanking for those opposite an opponents.
The question has been answered, let this thread die.
edit... responding to last post.
You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?
It's just an assumption that you need to be able to attack a creature to threaten it. The problem with that assumption is that it doesn't fit with the rules.
Another assumption would be that you need to be able to affect a creature to threaten it. That's a better assumption, because it avoids to set up a lot of situations that don't mesh with the rules.
Regardless, total concealment and thus blindness don't take away your chance to hit a creature in an adjacent square. You can still hit it, by attacking the square. Your chance to hit it is just not as good anymore. It is a very common occurrence for (N)PCs to successfully hit and damage their intended target in spite of a 50% miss chance imposed by concealment. The threat implied by the rules is quite obviously also a threat in the usual sense of the word. If you can hit and damage someone, why on earth would you want to maintain that there's no threat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've come to understand the opposing viewpoint. Since rules on threatening, and rules on AoO fall under the same section, they are tightly coupled together. You cannot have one without other. Since this logic is applicable to the section of rules on AoO, this logic must of course also apply to all other local section heading in any chapter in any book. Let's see some of the fun new powers I get as a result of this:
Injury and Death:
Among other things this section talks about dying (being at less than 0 hp but greater then -con). And death (being at -con or more). However, these are tightly coupled together. If you are dying, you are also dead. If you are dead, you are also dying. Both conditions must be met simultaneously for either to have any effect. Since I cannot be both -1 to -con and < -con at the same time, I am now immortal.
Terrain and Obstacles:
Among other things this describes obstacles that can completely block my movement. Tightly coupled with this is the rule of squeezing, but which I can move through an area I don't normally fit in. If there is an obstacle in my path, no problem, I will now just squeeze straight through it.
Concealment:
Various forms of cover are discussed. Also discussed is the idea that I can ignore cover. As tightly coupled as all these rules are - they are synonymous after all - I can always ignore cover, because if there is cover there must simultaneously exist a means of ignoring that cover readily available.
Helpless Defenders:
I can make regular attacks and coup de grace. Tightly couple together all of my attacks are now coup de grace's. Full attack coup de grace eat that buddy.
Special Attacks:
Whenever I charge someone I now also get to trip them, grapple them, sunder a piece of equipment, perform a faint, bull rush, disarm, and overrun. Not I can I, but I actually must do all these things. These is my super special attack - all must exist simultaneously. They cannot exist independently.
I love this new thing I've learned, where all rules listed under a specific section are all synonymous and co-dependent on each other - and I've only scratched the surface.
|
|
If you can't attack the square (If, for example, it was on the other side of this wall you seem to be banging your head on), then you don't threaten that square.
You know that, but have added it as a point for some reason and still are stuck on how a square is not a creature/person.
If your in the threatened square, then you are threatened. Period.
End of line...
|
|
You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?
You might think it obvious but until you can cite rules to back it up it's not.
Example A: what if its an incorporeal creature? Are you saying something lacking a physical body can't attack through walls that are not also force effects?
Example B: Similar in concept to castles' arrow slits many castles had murder holes on ceilings and holes on walls that could be attacked through by pole arms like long spears. This would be similar to the windows I mentioned. What if the creature is amorphous?
Example C: Walls have doors, can you attack through doors? I would think so. How about a halfling with the lunge feat equipped with a long spear just one one side of a small size door set in a stone wall? So a Tyrannosaurus's size is Gargantuan, it's bite weapon is mostly likely is not a light weapon which makes it Huge or Gargantuan and even with squeezing rules it can't get it's natural weapon through that door to make an attack on that halfling. Do both the halfling and the Tyrannosaurus threaten through the wall or just one?
Example D: What if a dungeon builder decided to build a stone hall 10 feet wide, then built a rice paper wall right down the middle? Let's make some of those bricks on just one of side of the hall enchanted with continual light stones. Now let's put a guard in the dark hall opposite one of these lights. Are you saying absolutely he can't stab a spear through that rice paper wall when he sees someone walking down the lit hall? Is your opinion based on the guard not being able to stab through rice paper or because there isn't a hole for him to stab through? Would it help if he was a 20th level fighter with 24 strength and all the sunder feats including the Greater Sunder feat wielding an adamantine long spear? Still can't attack through that wall?
Not even going into the hole illusionary walls and floors over pit traps.
Are you so sure now? If so, what makes you so sure? Feel free tell me what rules your basing your opinion on.
|
|
About that wall...
You could not threaten the square on the other side of the wall because you can't attack it, the wall is in the way.
Another poster added "what if..."
Well, if it is four feet high, it provides cover instead. If there is a window, you would attack through the window. (if you had it open or have enough force to break the glass)
The only way you would attack through a wall is if it was made of paper like you were in Japan. Perhaps you would see a silhouette of the form on the other side, or hear his clumsy, plodding feet.
I don't see why you think threatened squares is somehow broken enough to allow someone to attack through walls.
You are stuck on one passage of the rules that has to do with a part of the question at hand, and the fact that AoO had nothing to do with the original discussion seems to elude you.
I don't know, maybe I put the wall into your mind, since your banging away at it still.
You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?You might think it obvious but until you can cite rules to back it up it's not.
Example A: what if its an incorporeal creature? Are you saying something lacking a physical body can't attack through walls that are not also force effects?
Example B: Similar in concept to castles' arrow slits many castles had murder holes on ceilings and holes on walls that could be attacked through by pole arms like long spears. This would be similar to the windows I mentioned. What if the creature is amorphous?
Example C: Walls have doors, can you attack through doors? I would think so. How about a halfling with the lunge feat equipped with a long spear just one one side of a small size door set in a stone wall? So a Tyrannosaurus's size is Gargantuan, it's bite weapon is mostly likely is not a light weapon which makes it Huge or Gargantuan and even with squeezing rules it can't get it's natural weapon through that door to make an attack on that halfling. Do both the halfling and the Tyrannosaurus threaten through the wall or just one?
Example D: What if a dungeon builder decided to build a stone hall 10 feet wide, then built a rice paper wall right down the middle? Let's make some of those bricks on just one of side of the hall enchanted with continual light stones. Now let's put a guard in the dark hall opposite one of these lights. Are you saying absolutely he can't stab a spear through that rice paper wall when he sees someone walking down the lit hall? Is your opinion based on the guard not being able to stab through rice paper or because there isn't a hole for him to stab through? Would it help if he was a 20th level fighter with 24 strength and all the sunder feats including the Greater Sunder feat wielding an adamantine long spear? Still can't attack through that wall?
Not even going into the hole illusionary walls and...
The best part of all your examples is that they actually prove the point - and show the absurdity of the example of asking if you can attack through a SOLID wall as was implied when the example was first stated. Can you attack through a wall? If you are incorporeal you can, and thus you threaten. Can you a attack through a murder hole in a wall. Well yea, that's the whole purpose of a murder hole, to allow you to attack the space beyond it. Same thing with arrow slits.
Is the door open or closed? If closed, no you cannot attack through it sadly (unless you are incorporeal of course). If it is open, well that's funny, there is this large open space that I can stick my pointy stick through - wonder if I could wave the pointy stick around on the other side of the door and actually *gasp* stab someone.
Rice paper, hmm, this is a tough one. I might be a weakling peasant with 1 strength, not sufficient to break through the rice paper. I might be able to attack through the wall if I were a bit stronger - which means I could then stab at the person making the shadow on the other side. I might even hit it (though it does have total concealment, so I also might not, I'll give it 50/50). But if I do hit it I'm pretty sure it will still bleed.
Even better is that none of these examples really make any difference to threatening. All of these examples are cases of, is there some means by which I can ignore the fact there is a wall here (incorporeal, holes in the wall, an open door, a wall so thin it falls apart if I breath on it). If I can ignore the wall I can attack the space on the other side of it. I cannot ignore the wall I cannot make attacks into the space on the other side of it. You agree to all of this so far right? If not, please point out which part of this is incorrect.
Once we establish whether or not we have some means of ignoring the existence of the wall we can then go to those rules that talk about threatening and easily determine if we threaten or not based solely on whether we can attack that space or not.
|
|
You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?You might think it obvious but until you can cite rules to back it up it's not.
Example A: what if its an incorporeal creature? Are you saying something lacking a physical body can't attack through walls that are not also force effects?
Example B: Similar in concept to castles' arrow slits many castles had murder holes on ceilings and holes on walls that could be attacked through by pole arms like long spears. This would be similar to the windows I mentioned. What if the creature is amorphous?
Example C: Walls have doors, can you attack through doors? I would think so. How about a halfling with the lunge feat equipped with a long spear just one one side of a small size door set in a stone wall? So a Tyrannosaurus's size is Gargantuan, it's bite weapon is mostly likely is not a light weapon which makes it Huge or Gargantuan and even with squeezing rules it can't get it's natural weapon through that door to make an attack on that halfling. Do both the halfling and the Tyrannosaurus threaten through the wall or just one?
Example D: What if a dungeon builder decided to build a stone hall 10 feet wide, then built a rice paper wall right down the middle? Let's make some of those bricks on just one of side of the hall enchanted with continual light stones. Now let's put a guard in the dark hall opposite one of these lights. Are you saying absolutely he can't stab a spear through that rice paper wall when he sees someone walking down the lit hall? Is your opinion based on the guard not being able to stab through rice paper or because there isn't a hole for him to stab through? Would it help if he was a 20th level fighter with 24 strength and all the sunder feats including the Greater Sunder feat wielding an adamantine long spear? Still can't attack through that wall?
Not even going into the hole illusionary walls and...
Ok...
Incorporeal actually says something about that. They have to at least be partway out of the wall (or through) to attack.
Arrow slits (and windows) are specifically made for attacking through the wall, often giving an advantage to the defender of the castle. Cover goes into this, as it is still unlikely that the invader will get a hit in on the defender (The one inside)
You can attack through doorways when the door is open, ofcourse, and if it has been sundered, or has been damaged enough for the weapon to go through. This is common sense type stuff.
I did mention paper walls in the post I did at you did yours. That hallway sounds like a very neat encounter.
Illusions work on belief. If the attacker believes the wall is real, he doesn't think to attack through it. If he interacts with it. (puts his hand on it or is push against it) He gets a saving throw to disbelieve. There is a recent scenario that has an illusionary wall that hides monsters.
As you game, keep in mind that some common sense dictates what goes on in a game. Of course you can attack through paper walls, through a window (maybe open it first, or bust out the glass), over a hedge, ect..
The only real reason the Wall was introduced in the discussion was to say that "we" think a threatened square extends to beyond a solid wall.
Except for circumstances we have discussed (and possibly more), it does not. Typically, one can not attack through a wall. I have had more than one game where this has come into play. (Doorway, bottle neck, let me in there so I can hit something!!!)
...End Of Line.
You stated this as if it was extremely important and made perfect sense. The reason it doesn't fit the rules is because the rules are incomplete and don't define threatening a creature, at all, you have to assume how to threaten based on other rules, pertaining to Attacks of Opportunity.
There are rules for threatening creatures, and yes, those rules are under another heading. That's parr for the course for Pathfinder, rules being encapsulated within other rules. If that's a reason to discount the existence of certain rules, there are many rules you're going to need to discount. The rules for "Coup de Grace" are included under the heading of "Helpless Defenders", for example. According to your benchmark, that means there's no rules governing the concept of the "Coup de Grace". I can find you plenty more examples.
All of this is a real simple fix.
Threatening a Creature: To threaten a creature, first the creature must occupy one of your threatened squares. Next you must be able to both target the creature and be capable of attacking the creature, even when it is not your turn. You can not threaten a creature that can't suffer an Attack of Opportunity; you still threaten even if you have used all of your Attacks of Opportunity for the round.
But there's a much easier fix: don't make things more complicated than they need to be and just make do with the standing rules, because they're adequate.
Logically, you shouldn't threaten something you can't attack. Quoting an interpretation of a rule in the book, as if it were Gospel is just annoying.
You can't attack the creature under the meaning of "attack" as a rule of the game. You can still harm it under the rules of the game, even through the use of melee attacks. "Logically", if you can inflict grievous bodily harm on someone by lashing out at him and are of a mind to do so, you are threatening. What I find annoying is using the word "Logically" when what follows hasn't a shred of logic to it because it is a statement derived from a partial reading of a rule and not the complete one.
If you truly believe there is no problem with "threatening a square" being the same thing as "threatening a creature"; why are there so many loop holes to this opinion? Loop holes that work based on this definition of "threatening a squares" and not "threatening a person".
But the rules do tell us that there's a difference between threatening a square and threatening a creature:
"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)."
1) You threaten all those squares, always.
2) You generally threaten everything that's in those squares.
That means there are specific cases when you don't threaten something in a square you threaten. What you call loopholes are just tons of possible complications that are impossible to exhaustively describe in detail even if you'd want to. It's worded in a way that obviously demands GM adjudication.
The saddest thing to me is that so few people are even willing to say, yeah this is messed up.
Flanking a guy that is standing on another side of a wall...
The saddest thing to me is that you decide to run with examples that are so obviously cases of specific situations where something in a threatened square isn't threatened itself that there's really no need for a GM call. It really paints a picture of someone not wanting to see reason.
Of course, you're going to post now that blindness/concealment is another such complication. You'd be wrong, because blindness and concealment are defined in enough detail to conclude that being a threat is not off the table with those conditions.
|
|
It's just an assumption that you need to be able to attack a creature to threaten it. The problem with that assumption is that it doesn't fit with the rules.
Another assumption would be that you need to be able to affect a creature to threaten it. That's a better assumption, because it avoids to set up a lot of situations that don't mesh with the rules.
Thank you.
Regardless, total concealment and thus blindness don't take away your chance to hit a creature in an adjacent square. You can still hit it, by attacking the square. Your chance to hit it is just not as good anymore. It is a very common occurrence for (N)PCs to successfully hit and damage their intended target in spite of a 50% miss chance imposed by concealment. The threat implied by the rules is quite obviously also a threat in the usual sense of the word. If you can hit and damage someone, why on earth would you want to maintain that there's no threat?
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Since you seem pretty reasonable and you've been paying attention, I would really like you Forseti to answer some questions... Do you need to be able to make a melee attack into square when it is not your turn to threaten a square? Is this synonymous with AoO, since there is no other way to make a melee attack into a square when it's not your turn? Can you say why or why not? Maybe cite some rules that you're basing your decision on?
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.Since you seem pretty reasonable and you've been paying attention, I would really like you Forseti to answer some questions... Do you need to be able to make a melee attack into square when it is not your turn to threaten a square? Is this synonymous with AoO, since there is no other way to make a melee attack into a square when it's not your turn? Can you say why or why not? Maybe cite some rules that you're basing your decision on?
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
That sentence doesn't mean you have to be able to make an off-turn melee attack. Try reading it like:
"Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
Your reading makes no sense, because that would imply there was already a definition of "Attack of Opportunity." At the point in the text where the sentence appears, the concept of "AoO" doesn't exist yet, it is still being set up.
It would be similar, linguistically, to "If you can make an attack of opportunity and there's a rainbow outside, you will under some circumstances be able to make an attack of opportunity."
It's just meaningless.
|
|
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."That sentence doesn't mean you have to be able to make an off-turn melee attack. Try reading it like:
"Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
But I cannot make a melee attack when it is not my turn.
Your reading makes no sense, because that would imply there was already a definition of "Attack of Opportunity." At the point in the text where the sentence appears, the concept of "AoO" doesn't exist yet, it is still being set up.
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.
That seems to establish a concept of "AoO" to me. An outline of the section goes like this:
1. Attacks of Opportunity
A. Threatened Squares
B. Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
C. Making an Attack of Opportunity
That would imply Threatened Squares are a part Attacks of Opportunity in and of itself since the threatened squares is firmly nestled between the two. Can you threaten squares when it's not your turn?
So... Remove AoO from the game for a minute... Why take the time explain that something in your melee attack range can be hit by you during your turn? Why the redundancy?
Do we really really need to go back to sentence diagramming again for the meaning of the first sentence under the threatening rules? How each part applies to what part? I dunno, maybe we do since this seems to be the incorrect premise upon which your entire argument is founded.
A character is being flanked by two people. He defensively casts a wall of stone between him and one of the other people. That person can still attack the wall that is in the square, thus he can attack the square, thus he threatens the square, thus he threatens the wall and the person in the square, thus he is flanking the person that cast wall of stone still.
The location of squares is an abstract concept. If a new wall appears it is just as easy conceptually to shift the grid alignment so that the wall is now on the boundry of the 5' square you are in and the 5' square the enemy is in. You can now no longer attack the square he is in - the wall is in the way.
5' squares on maps usually line up with walls, but there is no requirement that they do so. Based on the abstract conceptualization of space though you cannot occupy a space closer to the wall then the 5' section that doesn't include the wall. In the real world I could certainly hug the wall, and take up less than a foot of space out from the wall. In the real world I'm also not a 5'x5'x5' cube of human flesh - even though in pathfinder I occupy that much space in order to fight effectively.
The goblin encased in the cube follows this same principle. The side of the cube that is closest to me becomes the demarcation point that begins the next 5' of space - the wall prevents me from attacking it. On the other side that guys abstraction of 5' space starts at the side of the cube that is closest to him. He can't attack that space either because the wall prevents him from attacking. There is no requirement that my 5' grid alignment matches up with everyone else's 5' grid alignment. We play that way only because we have figures and maps on which to lay things out on - and an overlay of each players grid alignment would be a horribly messy thing to look at. Prior editions to D&D did not encourage such miniatures style of play - the GM simply decided if you were in range or not.
Your claim is that by accepting your interpretation, all of these edge cases go away. But when you actually look at it, all these latest examples of 'problems' don't actually exist anyway - because you cannot attack through solid walls (exceptions of incorporeal etc already noted). And I could actually make a strong case for the one 'legitimate' claim you made of the blind/deaf/oblivious combatant who isn't aware he is in combat as a non-factor as well.
|
|
These points are made in this thread over and over.
- The sentence "you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." means that you threaten that square for the whole time you are in the spot you are in. You can attack it = you threaten it. It doesn't matter when you are able to attack, it just matters that you can at some point in the round.
- AoO can be taken when an enemy provokes one within a threatened square. The square needs to be threatened for the AoO to take place, not the other way around.
- Being blind does not remove the threat of you attacking adjacent squares, so you still threaten those squares. The reason you can not take an AoO when blinded is because of Total Concealment. It isn't because you don't threaten the square.
- AoO and being Threatened are not the same thing. AoO is a reaction to activity on the battlefield, Threatening an area is a static state. One enables the other to happen. (Threaten -> AoO)
Yes, a blinded person still can provide and is flanking when his ally is opposite of an enemy. The question is answered.
Are we Happy?
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."That sentence doesn't mean you have to be able to make an off-turn melee attack. Try reading it like:
"Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
But I cannot make a melee attack when it is not my turn.
This is true, except for an AoO if they provoke.
Following this logic then - at what point do two combatants get a flanking bonus for being on the opposite sides of an opponent? Only one of them gets a turn at time. One of them, who is taking his turn, the other, whose turn it is not, is not taking his turn, therefore he cannot attack, therefore he cannot threaten, therefore he cannot provide a flanking bonus. Unless of course the opponent (who turn it is also not) can somehow take an action that provokes - which is really hard to do, because he can't take actions when it is not his turn.
For that matter how do we ever provoke. If it is not my turn, I cannot attack, therefore I am not threatening, therefore anyone who takes a distracting action cannot provoke because I do not threaten.
Should we go back to the list of abilities that become nonsensical when AoO = threaten?
How does the level 12 cavalier threaten someone, when it is not his turn, to give the enemy a -2 to AC against the cavalier ally whose turn it is?
How does the 8th level cavalier who does not threaten, because it is not his turn, get to make an attack when his ally, whose turn it is, confirms a crit.
Or, here is a really good one, because we don't even know if a AoO condition is going to occur yet
Bulwark (Ex): The defender adds his armor check penalty as a bonus to the DC of opponents attempting to Bluff him and Acrobatics checks to pass by him without provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through spaces he threatens.
We can't determine if an AoO can occur until we know what the acrobatics roll is. We can't determine if we even need to make an acrobatics roll until we know if the bulwark user is going to be able to threaten us or not. Stalemate. If we somehow determine what DC we actually need to make the acrobatics check at, then succeed at the roll, it turns out we didn't need to make the roll at all because there was no chance of him ever threatening.
Here is another really good one
Destructive Counterstrike (Su): At 16th level, an opponent who activates a magical item while threatened by a soul forger provokes an attack of opportunity, either against the target or to sunder the item. If the item is destroyed, its effects are negated. This ability replaces counterstrike.
Activating many magical items does not provoke an AoO. Given it is our turn and not the enemies turn, the enemy is not threatening, after all he can't attack when it is not his turn unless we provoke. So we are not threatened by him, and activating our magic item cannot trigger his ability as it is dependent on us being threatened by him.
These are all examples of RAW supporting the argument against you. I again challenge you to quote the rules that show RAW in your support.
But I cannot make a melee attack when it is not my turn.
But you also can't make an attack of opportunity unless someone provokes one. Wouldn't that, in your reading, imply that you only threaten at the time when someone is provoking? How would that work with flanking? It's my turn and my friend is at the opposite side of an enemy I'm about to attack. The enemy is not provoking an attack of opportunity at that time, so my friend is at that time unable to make an off-turn melee attack, so he's not threatening, and I don't get a flanking bonus?
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.
Nothing in that section tells you yet that you can make
That seems to establish a concept of "AoO" to me. An outline of the section goes like this:
1. Attacks of Opportunity
A. Threatened Squares
B. Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
C. Making an Attack of Opportunity
But really, just do the substitution and see how nonsensical the text ends up being:
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.
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make an attack of opportunity. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a square into which you can make an attack of opportunity provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
You can make an attack of opportunity into threatened squares, and threatened squares are defined as squares into which you can make an attack of opportunity. That's a circular construct that at no point gives any kind of actual definition of "threatened square".
"Who can I use an attack of opportunity on?"
"Someone in a threatened square that performs certain actions!"
"What's a threatened square?"
"A square into which you can make an attack of opportunity!"
"But how do I know when a square is one of those squares into which I can make an attack of opportunity?"
"When it's a threatened square!"
"But what's a threatened square?"
"A square into which you can make an attack of opportunity!"
Etc. etc.
So... Remove AoO from the game for a minute... Why take the time explain that something in your melee attack range can be hit by you during your turn? Why the redundancy?
Does that happen anywhere?
So a colossal sized blind zombie still threatens everything within 25 feet of itself.But a creature encased in a cocoon of stone or webbing or what ever thing that prevents you from attacking it directly, but is still in a space you can occupy is threatened per your claim, that all it takes is to threaten is to be able to attack a square.
Your premise seems very flawed. So, to support your premise you decide to make everything else coincides to your will, to maintain that your original premise still holds water.
That wall of stone separates our squares so I can not attack the square.
Well guess what, the caster decided to cut the square in half with it, so the guy is now squeezing into the square.
So you still can attack into the square so you still threaten the square so you still threaten him.
What about a wall of force, do you threaten the square till you realize there is an invisible wall in between you?
The flawed premise you decide to base everything on causes more problems, than anything else.
What is so wrong saying there could be some clarification.
Especially since everything we are debating is open gaming license to begin with.
See abstraction of grid alignment.
These then fall back to, do you have some means of ignoring the presence of said wall of stone or wall of force. If not, then you cannot attack into the square just on the other side of said wall. To threaten you must be able to attack the square. Said wall prevents it, thus you do not threaten. Your knowledge or ignorance of a wall of force being present has no relevance on your trying to attack a square. You could *try* to attack it, but you can't actually succeed at attacking it.
Looking back at the beginning of this thread, Grick had explained all this with three or four answering/correction posts. Necronis has chosen to ignore his very well written and quoted posts and continues to bang his head on the wall.
Why do we have four pages of this?
Mostly cause I'm bored and keep feeding him :)
I'm sorry is'See abstraction of grid alignment.'is this a rule somewhere, detailed in the book or did you pass your own judgement and opinion off as RAW, again?
Can you show me the rules that say once my grid is in place it must remain fixed?
I'm not passing it off as RAW. I'm passing it off as a piece of critical thinking. I'm passing it off as a easily understood conceptual idea. RAW neither favors nor is against the abstraction. Developers sometimes talk about the abstraction (feel free to search the forums, you'll find them). There is an abstraction of grid locations. An abstraction of rounds (real world everyone takes their actions near simultaneously - the round merely represents a 6 second interval of action - taken in the abstract concept of turns). There are abstractions of other things as well - the rules talk about some of these things, but they never talk about them being abstractions - they talk about them as being game mechanics.
Just like the idea to refer to your previous post before this one of allies and enemies. Allies and enemies are abstractions.
There is nothing that prevents the wizard from saying, "I'm tired of working with you schmucks. I cast haste on myself and all the orcs." Haste targets allies, but the wizard at the time of his casting gets to decide who he thinks an ally is. Other people do not get to decide for him, the game does not decide for him.
If I'm choosing to attack someone, it is because I think of them as an enemy. It doesn't matter if they intended to hurt me or not. My intent to hurt them makes them an enemy at that point in time in regards to how all rules function in relation to enemies.
If I choose not to attack someone then they are either neutral or an ally. It doesn't matter if they are about to shove a lightning bolt down my throat. I get to decide at any point in time if I think they are an ally or not - and the mechanics flow to fit my current perception of them.
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."You don't normally threaten if you are unarmed, so you cant make attacks of opportunity.
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.
So being unarmed normally implies you don't threaten so you cant take an attack of opportunity.
You can't see your opponent so you (don't threaten) can't execute an attack of opportunity, even if he knows what square he is in.
This seems like a logical jump.
That only proves that you have no grasp of logic.
You can't make an AoO if you don't threaten the square.Hunh, he actually went and said that. Let's finish his quote though.
By basing whether you threaten the square on whether you can make an AoO, you've got a recursive definition.recursive definition, what is that???
re·cur·sive
/riˈkərsiv/
Adjective
Characterized by recurrence or repetition, in particular.
Relating to or involving the repeated application of a rule, definition, or procedure to successive results.HMMMMMMMMMM.
So saying that you can't make an AoO because you don't threaten, is lik saying you don't threaten because you can't make an AoO!!!
No way, he said that on page one.
How did I miss, him agreeing with me.
He's not agreeing with you, he's proving that you lack reading comprehension.
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."You don't normally threaten if you are unarmed, so you cant make attacks of opportunity.
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.
So being unarmed normally implies you don't threaten so you cant take an attack of opportunity.
You can't see your opponent so you (don't threaten) can't execute an attack of opportunity, even if he knows what square he is in.
This seems like a logical jump.
You can't make an AoO if you don't threaten the square.Hunh, he actually went and said that. Let's finish his quote though.
By basing whether you threaten the square on whether you can make an AoO, you've got a recursive definition.recursive definition, what is that???
re·cur·sive
/riˈkərsiv/
Adjective
Characterized by recurrence or repetition, in particular.
Relating to or involving the repeated application of a rule, definition, or procedure to successive results.HMMMMMMMMMM.
So saying that you can't make an AoO because you don't threaten, is lik saying you don't threaten because you can't make an AoO!!!
No way, he said that on page one.
How did I miss, him agreeing with me.
You've got chutzpah :).
You should actually read what he says though, instead of inserting into his mouth what you want him to say.
Your twisting of words is fun to watch though, so lets continue. I'm going to go get some more popcorn.
While I'm gone solve Forseti' recursion loop. You need to find some way to get started into the loop, and someway get out of the loop with a meaningful answer at the end of when you can take an AoO.
"Who can I use an attack of opportunity on?"
"Someone in a threatened square that performs certain actions!"
"What's a threatened square?"
"A square into which you can make an attack of opportunity!"
"But how do I know when a square is one of those squares into which I can make an attack of opportunity?"
"When it's a threatened square!"
"But what's a threatened square?"
"A square into which you can make an attack of opportunity!"
|
|
So when you are blind, and you can not take attacks of opportunity and you can not attack when it is not your turn, and you can not attack a person, you can only attack into the square that you hope he is in; this translates into you threaten all squares you can reach.
First, that is a very long sentence.
Lets take this one step at a time.
- Blind... got it. ok.
- No AoO. got it. OK.
- can not attack when it is not my turn... Why does this matter? I still threaten the square if I can attack it on my turn, whether or not it is my turn. Why are you stuck on this?
- Can not attack a person, only square. If I attack the area (square) that the person is in, I could hit him... I still threaten.
- Threaten all squares in reach. Well, all the squares I can attack. Remember, reach weapons can't attack adjacent squares, but the squares 10 ft away, but yes, I do.
The sentence is structured in such a way to indicate that the last part is somehow out of joint with the rest. I type this to give explanation to the casual reader, not to question it's intent.
Yes, but it can not take AoO, barring some other ability to sense targets. (like Lifesense)So a colossal sized blind zombie still threatens everything within 25 feet of itself.
But a creature encased in a cocoon of stone or webbing or what ever thing that prevents you from attacking it directly, but is still in a space you can occupy is threatened per your claim, that all it takes is to threaten is to be able to attack a square.
The one in a cocoon is likely considered Pinned, webbing can be sliced through but can be sticky and spider knows your there. If entangled in the cocoon, you need to have a light weapon wielded to threaten. If I am slashing at the webs, there is a chance I will hit Mr Spider as I do so.
Per my claim. really? It is right there, written down, posters on this thread have quoted the passage. That you don't know what to do with a comma is...
"sad, just sad." as you stated in another post.
Your premise seems very flawed. So, to support your premise you decide to make everything else coincides to your will, to maintain that your original premise still holds water.
I have referenced rules and situations that I have encountered in game. I know to which I talk, I have played the game.
That wall of stone separates our squares so I can not attack the square.
Well guess what, the caster decided to cut the square in half with it, so the guy is now squeezing into the square.
So you still can attack into the square so you still threaten the square so you still threaten him.
I take this to mean the mage has made a crack in the wall. As that happens, then I threaten him if I am right there as he does this and I am able to attack the square on my turn. I most likely won't get an AoO, since the action he took was before the wall was sundered. I would think an action like that would involve damage in itself, from the force of the sunder, or the spell he used to sunder the wall.
What about a wall of force, do you threaten the square till you realize there is an invisible wall in between you?
No, because I can not attack the square beyond that Wall of Force. It doesn't matter whether the character knows that he can not attack it, just that he is prevented from doing so. The GM would likely say that I don't get the AoO when the wizard moves away and explain that the Wall of Force is between us.
The flawed premise you decide to base everything on causes more problems, than anything else.
What is so wrong saying there could be some clarification.
Especially since everything we are debating is open gaming license to begin with.
The flawed premise you decided to base your argument on causes more complications than anything else.
You are making things more complex than they need to be. If you want clarifications on something like this, then I dread the rule book you would write for a similar game. I likely would need a library to contain the volumes.
OGL. hmmm. Yes, this is a vast improvement over the OGL. Just imagine what could be if Pathfinder had it's own rule set instead of having to adjust the OGL.