Yeah, this is pretty well settled. Remy has pointed out areas that could be taken either way by themselves and without context, but wraithstrike has shown that sunder does not normally target the item via reductio ad absurdum--if the item were the target, then sunder would never trigger an attack of opportunity, since items cannot take attacks of opportunity.
No doubt. My point is if he's insisting upon fighting you on the definition of something in contest already, come at it from a different angle, where you already know he agrees with the premise. So, he's wrong either way. I'm just giving another argument to show it using a position he's already on record as supporting (that "fluff" text is an integral part of defining how an ability works).
I'll go back to writing my brief now.
Meh ...
|
Since this is an example of a player coming up with a creative response to a problem, and it making absolutely perfect sense in context, I would definitely allow sundering (or disarming) a reach weapon with a readied action at my table, even in PFS, with no feats required to do so.
I would not, however, allow attacking a creature itself (without the feat), even if they were using a natural weapon or an unarmed strike.
Since this is an example of a player coming up with a creative response to a problem, and it making absolutely perfect sense in context, I would definitely allow sundering (or disarming) a reach weapon with a readied action at my table, even in PFS, with no feats required to do so.
I would not, however, allow attacking a creature itself (without the feat), even if they were using a natural weapon or an unarmed strike.
In PFS you are not allowed to use house rules.
Remy is one who always ignores the rules he doesn't like to come up with some really absurd positions. There are a number of effects in the game that target a creature but the effect is applied to one of its items. This is nothing new and everyone really understands that fact and I imagine that in all of those other cases Remy understands that as well but is only ignoring now because it doesn't fit his position.
Remy is one who believes the description/introductory language is part and parcel of how a feat or ability functions. The introductory language of Strike Back makes it clear that the purpose of the feat is to now be able to attack the weapons of someone who is attacking you from beyond your reach.
You assume I have a position. Cute.
I would describe it as a non-position. I'm uncertain that it is RAW. That is to say, I am unconvinced that the earlier statements that "By RAW it cannot be done" are true. There are a number of discrepancies with that.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to attempt to characterize me, expect that we have disagreed in the past on points wholly irrelevant to this topic and you are holding on to resentment. Let it go mate. It isn’t healthy or helpful.
Yeah, this is pretty well settled. Remy has pointed out areas that could be taken either way by themselves and without context, but wraithstrike has shown that sunder does not normally target the item via reductio ad absurdum--if the item were the target, then sunder would never trigger an attack of opportunity, since items cannot take attacks of opportunity.
I'm not so sure it is settled.
How do you attack an incorporeal creature who is inside the floor?
You ready an action to hit them when they reach out to attack. They are fully immersed in the floor, their entire square which they 'occupy' is solid and your attack simply cannot enter it.
We know that you can attack a creature outside of the square the creature is in because of this. And it is absolutely RAW.
How do we make sense of that?
At the moment of the readied action, the incorporeal creature has exposed itself into the square above it. So we can hit it, in the brief moment.
Is that any different from when a creature with reach attacks a character? Are they not, for that brief moment, exposing themselves in a square they are not considered occupying?
This tells me that we can do it; we have the precedent for it.
Yeah, this is pretty well settled. Remy has pointed out areas that could be taken either way by themselves and without context, but wraithstrike has shown that sunder does not normally target the item via reductio ad absurdum--if the item were the target, then sunder would never trigger an attack of opportunity, since items cannot take attacks of opportunity.I'm not so sure it is settled.
How do you attack an incorporeal creature who is inside the floor?
You ready an action to hit them when they reach out to attack. They are fully immersed in the floor, their entire square which they 'occupy' is solid and your attack simply cannot enter it.
We know that you can attack a creature outside of the square the creature is in because of this. And it is absolutely RAW.
How do we make sense of that?
At the moment of the readied action, the incorporeal creature has exposed itself into the square above it. So we can hit it, in the brief moment.
Is that any different from when a creature with reach attacks a character? Are they not, for that brief moment, exposing themselves in a square they are not considered occupying?
This tells me that we can do it; we have the precedent for it.
Is the incorporeal creature adjacent to you when it makes that attack? Would you say that if the floor wasn't there that you would be able to reach said incorporeal creature?
I have a dude tied up and am pulling him along on my 50ft length of rope. His buddy shows up to free him, and goes to cut him free.
Can he:
A) Cut the rope. Attack it like an unattended object, despite it being in my hands.
B) Make a sunder attempt on the rope, from 30ft away where he wants to cut it.
C) Can only cut it if he gets into melee range with me and sunders me.
I suspect the answer is B. I am curious what others think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather look at it this way Remy:
When a creature makes an attack into an adjacent square, all of their belongings, including weapons wielded and armor worn, unless otherwise noted, still remain in the same square that the creature occupies. Even weapons not in the creature's possession, in the case of a Dancing-property Weapon, come out and say that they remain in the same square as the character who activated it, since the general rule is equipment not on your person isn't assumed to move with you.
RAW, if I'm making an attack with a reach weapon, the reach weapon does not leave my square. In the same method that I would be using Aid Another for Attacks/AC, my weapon or shield does not leave my square while performing these actions. You simply use said weapons to affect the square in question. That's it. None of this "My weapon travels to this square to make the attack" garbage you seem to imply happens.
While you have a point in terms of real-life logic, there are two major things against your claim:
1. This game is all about rules. The rules are written abstract of full realism, and your claim is only about as right as the rules have written upon them. Since there is already a precedent given with feats such as Strike Back, as well as my explanation above, your claim has no application.
2. This is Fantasy. While our modern world is used as a template to help describe it, there are several laws of both physics and realities themselves that this game breaks; who is to say that this isn't one of them?
Is the incorporeal creature adjacent to you when it makes that attack? Would you say that if the floor wasn't there that you would be able to reach said incorporeal creature?Yeah, this is pretty well settled. Remy has pointed out areas that could be taken either way by themselves and without context, but wraithstrike has shown that sunder does not normally target the item via reductio ad absurdum--if the item were the target, then sunder would never trigger an attack of opportunity, since items cannot take attacks of opportunity.I'm not so sure it is settled.
How do you attack an incorporeal creature who is inside the floor?
You ready an action to hit them when they reach out to attack. They are fully immersed in the floor, their entire square which they 'occupy' is solid and your attack simply cannot enter it.
We know that you can attack a creature outside of the square the creature is in because of this. And it is absolutely RAW.
How do we make sense of that?
At the moment of the readied action, the incorporeal creature has exposed itself into the square above it. So we can hit it, in the brief moment.
Is that any different from when a creature with reach attacks a character? Are they not, for that brief moment, exposing themselves in a square they are not considered occupying?
This tells me that we can do it; we have the precedent for it.
It is attacking you in your square. From through the floor.
I'm 100ft up in a tree.
Can you chop it down at the base?
Depends really. Are you holding it, or is it supporting you?
If you are literally holding a 100+ft tree I'd not wanna mess with you either way.
But, if you are simply on top of it, then it is considered an unattended object, so you can chop it down by attacking it normally.
I have a dude tied up and am pulling him along on my 50ft length of rope. His buddy shows up to free him, and goes to cut him free.
Can he:
A) Cut the rope. Attack it like an unattended object, despite it being in my hands.
B) Make a sunder attempt on the rope, from 30ft away where he wants to cut it.
C) Can only cut it if he gets into melee range with me and sunders me.
I suspect the answer is B. I am curious what others think.
This is different than a reach weapon being used in combat, ergo its application has no meaning, but I will still bite...
The rope in question is occupying several squares; it occupies the squares both the tied-up and tier-upper occupy, as well as a straight line of squares between the two. Each "square" of rope represents a separate "target zone" for the incoming creature to attack/sunder, in which best symbolizes your explanation.
However, where he cuts is what's important. If he is trying to cut either the tied-up one or the tier-upper, he must make a Sunder attempt against the respective CMD's, as these are otherwise considered attended objects. The middle areas, however, are unattended objects, which can be destroyed as normal.
So to fully answer your question, it's a combination of A and B, with B being applicable to squares in which a creature occupies and has possession of the rope, and A being applicable to squares in which no creature resides.
I'd rather look at it this way Remy:
When a creature makes an attack into an adjacent square, all of their belongings, including weapons wielded and armor worn, unless otherwise noted, still remain in the same square that the creature occupies. Even weapons not in the creature's possession, in the case of a Dancing-property Weapon, come out and say that they remain in the same square as the character who activated it, since the general rule is equipment not on your person isn't assumed to move with you.
RAW, if I'm making an attack with a reach weapon, the reach weapon does not leave my square. In the same method that I would be using Aid Another for Attacks/AC, my weapon or shield does not leave my square while performing these actions. You simply use said weapons to affect the square in question. That's it. None of this "My weapon travels to this square to make the attack" garbage you seem to imply happens.
While you have a point in terms of real-life logic, there are two major things against your claim:
1. This game is all about rules. The rules are written abstract of full realism, and your claim is only about as right as the rules have written upon them. Since there is already a precedent given with feats such as Strike Back, as well as my explanation above, your claim has no application.
2. This is Fantasy. While our modern world is used as a template to help describe it, there are several laws of both physics and realities themselves that this game breaks; who is to say that this isn't one of them?
So, what you are saying.... what you are actually saying... is that in combat no creatures ever actually touch one another. Ever. They remain 100% isolated in their own squares and cannot interact with things outside of them?
I think that is absurd in the extreme. And I know with 100% certainty that is wrong.
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach.
This is a FAQ quote that tells us we can affect creatures and objects within our reach. It also admits that the rules here are hazy.
If a creature reaches into your square, they're within your reach. You can most certainly reach your square. They're only there for the period of time of their attack, so the only way to interact with them while they are in your square is with readied actions, or immediate actions.
I get that most people disagree. But, on what grounds are they disagreeing? It seems to simply be convention.
I have a dude tied up and am pulling him along on my 50ft length of rope. His buddy shows up to free him, and goes to cut him free.
Can he:
A) Cut the rope. Attack it like an unattended object, despite it being in my hands.
B) Make a sunder attempt on the rope, from 30ft away where he wants to cut it.
C) Can only cut it if he gets into melee range with me and sunders me.
I suspect the answer is B. I am curious what others think.
This is different than a reach weapon being used in combat, ergo its application has no meaning, but I will still bite...
The rope in question is occupying several squares; it occupies the squares both the tied-up and tier-upper occupy, as well as a straight line of squares between the two. Each "square" of rope represents a separate "target zone" for the incoming creature to attack/sunder, in which best symbolizes your explanation.
However, where he cuts is what's important. If he is trying to cut either the tied-up one or the tier-upper, he must make a Sunder attempt against the respective CMD's, as these are otherwise considered attended objects. The middle areas, however, are unattended objects, which can be destroyed as normal.
So to fully answer your question, it's a combination of A and B, with B being applicable to squares in which a creature occupies and has possession of the rope, and A being applicable to squares in which no creature resides.
So if the rope is outside my 5ft square you can attack it as an unattended object?
So if my spear is outside my 5ft square you can attack it as an unattended object?
If the rope connecting the two creatures is a line which has 2 anchoring points (such as Web), then yes, the squares that are not the anchoring points function as an unattended object.
Your spear, on the other hand, if is wielded by you, is thusly attended by you, and therefore falls under qualifications for Sunder. If not, then yes, it can be attacked as an unattended object.
I'd like a full link to that FAQ, since the snippet you quoted me seems highly irrelevant: You obviously did not pay clear attention to it carefully enough. It says "you can affect objects and creatures within your reach." This was never disputed. What's being disputed are the subjects within your reach. And hazy, in what regard?
RAW, at what point does a creature with reach (that is, reach bigger than yours) attacking into your square count as them being in your melee reach? It doesn't. If I have a Giant with 10 ft. reach swinging at a Greatsword Barbarian, and decides to use a Sunder maneuver, are you going to let that Barbarian counter-sunder with his Improved Sunder?
In addition, if you can perform Sunder and Disarm maneuvers at these same creatures, why would you need a feat to make an actual attack against them, when these same Sunder and Disarm maneuvers are made in place of actual attacks?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you say makes sense from a verisimilitude standpoint, Remy, but RAW-wise there is support for not being able to sunder an enemy's weapon from outside your ability to attack the enemy and no support for being able to do it. It really doesn't matter that we all know the spear must occupy the intervening distance between the two combatants. The combat rules don't allow it for whatever reason--probably balance, since it would reduce the already situational appeal of reach weapons if they could simply be sundered from afar to neutralize their usefulness. Hence the ridiculous requirements for the Strike Back feat.
I agree that it's silly and I allow it myself, but RAW is clear that sundering an attended object replaces a melee attack against its wielder, and you can only have a melee attack to replace in the first place if the creature you'd be attacking is within melee range of your weapon.
Short of a FAQ asking for clarification that this really is the case, there's little point in arguing about it. Not that this ever stops a rules thread. : D
I'd like a full link to that FAQ, since the snippet you quoted me seems highly irrelevant: You obviously did not pay clear attention to it carefully enough. It says "you can affect objects and creatures within your reach." This was never disputed. What's being disputed are the subjects within your reach. And hazy, in what regard?
RAW, at what point does a creature with reach (that is, reach bigger than yours) attacking into your square count as them being in your melee reach? It doesn't. If I have a Giant with 10 ft. reach swinging at a Greatsword Barbarian, and decides to use a Sunder maneuver, are you going to let that Barbarian counter-sunder with his Improved Sunder?
In addition, if you can perform Sunder and Disarm maneuvers at these same creatures, why would you need a feat to make an actual attack against them, when these same Sunder and Disarm maneuvers are made in place of actual attacks?
I linked it earlier, but here it is again in full:
Reach and Objects: Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that cannot reach you, no matter what action you are taking, even if it includes reaching into a threatened space. Although it might seem realistic to allow an attack in such a case, it would make the game far too complicated.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.
So, what we can learn from this FAQ:
These rules are hazy.
You can affect objects/creatures within your reach.
AoO are only for enemies who can reach your space.
You clearly reach into the space you reach into.
So.. for the brief moment of time that you are performing an action where you reach into another space, you actually reach into that space. This doesn't generate any AoOs unless they can reach the space you rightfully occupy fully (although that would be realistic).
This directly counters your point about never leaving the space you occupy. You clearly can/do. In fact you must to be able to affect creatures or objects in other spaces!
It is silent on whether this opens you up to being attacked by a readied action, this quote isn't direct support of that. But it does well to dismiss the notion that you never leave your space.
Since we know you can leave your space to reach into other spaces within your reach, the rules regarding how incorporeal creatures within solid objects (such as floors and walls etc) plays out in an understandable and reasonable fashion.
An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.
An incorporeal creature can peep up out of the floor into the space above it, and attack a character there. When they do, for the brief moment of their attack, they are vulnerable to a readied action to attack them. This is because they have extended themselves out of their space into a nonsolid space above. They retain cover, which represents that they are mostly still in their occupied space. But they are vulnerable for that fraction of a second, because they're not fully in their space, and can thus be attacked in the space they attacked into.
If I am somehow wrong on this, please show me. But the rules show us strong precedent that it can be done. In fact, if it couldn't be done, incorporeal creatures would be exceedingly dangerous, as you'd never be able to attack them without drawing them fully out of solid objects first into occupying an open-air space. But, that is clearly not the case, per RAW.
Being able to attack a ghost in a space it doesn’t fully occupy with a readied action isn’t any different than attacking a creature with reach in a space it doesn’t fully occupy. When it makes the attack into the space, it would be vulnerable to a readied action for only that brief moment. It is very clearly in that space, affecting creatures/objects in the process… so since it is there for only that instant, anything that happens during that instant should be able to target it there. That is how incorporeal handles it, anyway, why is this different?
If the rope connecting the two creatures is a line which has 2 anchoring points (such as Web), then yes, the squares that are not the anchoring points function as an unattended object.
Your spear, on the other hand, if is wielded by you, is thusly attended by you, and therefore falls under qualifications for Sunder. If not, then yes, it can be attacked as an unattended object.
Ok. I have a whip. I tie one end to a tied up prisoner and pull him with my whip.
Now his buddy comes along and wants to cut the whip.
I am holding my whip. A weapon. An attended object.
Is my held weapon unattended now in any of the 15ft between me and the prisoner? Must it be sundered in melee range of me? Can it be sundered from further away? Can it be attacked as an object?
How is this any different from the very moment I attack with the whip and extend it out 15ft to attack someone?
Are the whips in either of these cases not occupying multiple squares? One for only an instant, the other for a continuous duration... but are they not both occupying the same range/areas?
I just wanna see if we are being consistent here or not.
If the rope connecting the two creatures is a line which has 2 anchoring points (such as Web), then yes, the squares that are not the anchoring points function as an unattended object.
Your spear, on the other hand, if is wielded by you, is thusly attended by you, and therefore falls under qualifications for Sunder. If not, then yes, it can be attacked as an unattended object.
Ok. I have a whip. I tie one end to a tied up prisoner and pull him with my whip.
Now his buddy comes along and wants to cut the whip.
I am holding my whip. A weapon. An attended object.
Is my held weapon unattended now in any of the 15ft between me and the prisoner? Must it be sundered in melee range of me? Can it be sundered from further away? Can it be attacked as an object?
How is this any different from the very moment I attack with the whip and extend it out 15ft to attack someone?
Are the whips in either of these cases not occupying multiple squares? One for only an instant, the other for a continuous duration... but are they not both occupying the same range/areas?
I just wanna see if we are being consistent here or not.
The whip being used as a chain or rope like device is covering several squares for an extended period of time. In combat the item is not just lying there. Now by the rules the whip is an attended item, but since it is being used in a different manner I would resort to rule 0, and allow it to be attacked directly using the "smash item" rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record… You really do target the item when you sunder. It is so prevalent in the rules, in practically every instance of sunder being talked about throughout the rules, in almost any source book imaginable.
I did a search, for your perusal. Bolding the relevant bits for quick scanning of all the vast examples.
Also included: Commentary as the sheer magnitude of the examples slowly crushes my ability to resist the evidence.
Enjoy! ^.^
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Says sunder an item.
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a sunder combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to sunder your gear.
Sunder an item, again. Also, why not simply say “whenever an opponent tries to sunder you.” Why add “your gear”?
Whenever you sunder to destroy a weapon, shield, or suit of armor, any excess damage is applied to the item's wielder. No damage is transferred if you decide to leave the item with 1 hit point.
Sunder to destroy weapon/shield/armor…
Why is the excess damage applied to the “Item’s wielder” and not to “the target”?Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver.
Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Hmm.
Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can sunder your opponent’s weapon, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may deal damage to your opponent’s weapon as if from the sunder combat maneuver (roll normal damage to the weapon separately). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Sunder the weapon? They clearly meant to say “sunder your target”. Since the opponent is the target. Mhm.
Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20.
Sundering weapons again. This seems pervasive, even in special materials!. Must be erroneous every time.
When you succeed at a sunder combat maneuver against a holy or unholy symbol, you can attempt an Intimidate check to demoralize as a free action. This demoralization affects all followers of the deity or philosophy whose symbol you sundered who saw you sunder it and are within 30 feet. If you destroyed the symbol, you gain a +5 bonus on your Intimidate check. You can use this feat when sundering any physical holy symbol - it doesn't have to be the hand-held variety commonly used by clerics and other divine spellcasters.
“Against a holy or unholy symbol” you say? Wuuut. I thought those were items, but sunder maneuvers are attacks against creatures! I swears it. >.<
Sundering Bite (Ex)
A khargra can making a sunder attempt with its bite attack against an opponent's weapon or shield without provoking attacks of opportunity. Resolve this using the normal rules for a sunder attempt. If the khargra succeeds on its CMB roll, it deals 2d8+2 points of damage to the weapon or shield. Note, against a khargra, a weapon or shield's hardness is only one-half as effective as normal. This means that a light steel shield, for example, is considered to have a hardness of 5 rather than 10 against a khargra's sunder attack. A weapon or shield reduced to 0 or less hit points is destroyed and half of it is swallowed by the khargra.
It only uses this special attack against metal weapons and shields. Damaged armor and weapons gain the broken condition.
How can it use this attack? It is an attack against the wearer, not the armor! Noooo. Why does it say that the item is the target! Ahhh. So many errors.
If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword.
Ahh!
Hydra Traits (Ex)
A hydra can be killed by severing all of its heads or slaying its body. Any attack that is not an attempt to sever a head affects the body, including area attacks or attacks that cause piercing or bludgeoning damage. To sever a head, an opponent must make a sunder attempt with a slashing weapon a head. A head is considered a separate weapon with hardness 0 and hit points equal to the hydra's HD. To sever a head, an opponent must inflict enough damage to reduce the head's hit points to 0 or less. Severing a head deals damage to the hydra's body equal to the hydra's current HD. A hydra can't attack with a severed head, but takes no other penalties.
Hydras are weird, first off. But, the head is treated as a weapon, and that weapon must be the “target” of a sunder. Hrm.
When you have a shield equipped, if a foe in reach makes an attack against you and misses by 5 or more that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If a foe attempts to make a combat maneuver targeting your shield (such as sunder) and after the maneuver is resolved your shield is still in hand and not broken or destroyed, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. You can only use this attack of opportunity to attack the foe with your shield.
Oh no it did NOT just say the shield was explicitly the target of sunder.
You gain a bonus equal to half your tier on checks to sunder, and to your CMD when an opponent tries to sunder an object used by you. These bonuses stack with those granted by Improved Sunder.
Furthermore, you can make an attack of opportunity against any creature that attempts to sunder an object used by you, unless it also has this feat.
Mhm.
As an immediate action after making a successful attack with the axe, the wielder can expend one use of mythic power to make a combat maneuver check to sunder a single item being used by the creature he just successfully attacked. This sunder attempt deals double damage and uses the wielder's full base attack bonus. If the item is destroyed by this sunder attempt, no excess damage is applied to the item's wielder or other items.
Shouldn’t that last bit say no excess damage is applied to the target or the target’s other items?
I wonder… maybe… maybe the item is the target? Hmm.A legendary item with this ability has double the hardness of a typical item of its type and triple the hit points. Furthermore, it's immune to all attempts to sunder it made by non-mythic creatures. This is a persistent ability.
Thinking…
The damage dealt when you use improvised weapons increases by your tier. You also gain a bonus to CMD equal to your tier when an opponent attempts to sunder or disarm an improvised weapon you're wielding.
They can attempt to sunder… your weapon?
You have received special training with traditional elven weapons (longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, composite shortbows, and any weapon with the word “elven” in its name). You receive a +2 bonus to your CMD against disarm and sunder maneuvers directed at one of these weapons you are wielding. In addition, if you are wielding one of these melee weapons, you may make an additional attack of opportunity each round (this bonus stacks with Combat Reflexes).
Ah, I give up. The sunder maneuver targets the item. I get it already!
You can attempt to sunder an item
Enough, omg.
And here I was just going to point out that a readied actions occurs before before the action that triggers it so without reach (or the feat) you couldn't attack the weapon (claw, arm, spear, whatever) because it hasn't moved into your reach yet when the readied action is resolved.
Remy: Did you notice the post where I stated that the description of the Strike Back feat states that it allows a person to attack the reaching attacker's limbs or weapons?
Since that description specifically mentions the ability to attack weapons, it's likely that the game's designers, at least, don't think that's possible without the feat.
What you say makes sense from a verisimilitude standpoint, Remy, but RAW-wise there is support for not being able to sunder an enemy's weapon from outside your ability to attack the enemy and no support for being able to do it. It really doesn't matter that we all know the spear must occupy the intervening distance between the two combatants. The combat rules don't allow it for whatever reason--probably balance, since it would reduce the already situational appeal of reach weapons if they could simply be sundered from afar to neutralize their usefulness. Hence the ridiculous requirements for the Strike Back feat.
I agree that it's silly and I allow it myself, but RAW is clear that sundering an attended object replaces a melee attack against its wielder, and you can only have a melee attack to replace in the first place if the creature you'd be attacking is within melee range of your weapon.
Short of a FAQ asking for clarification that this really is the case, there's little point in arguing about it. Not that this ever stops a rules thread. : D
See, that is the thing. I'm not arguing that you can do it. Even if my language seems that way occasionally. I'm simply arguing that RAW doesn't seem to exclude the option. I know that it has been said many times now that RAW says NO... but there seems to be a lack of actual RAW saying it, and more just people saying it.
Attacking a creature simply requires that they're within range of you. If you ready an action to attack them while they extend into another space, that seems to meet that requirement.
Would it normally? Naw, because they are only concretely in their space at all given moments... but they are also concretely in another space for that specific given moment when they attack into it, for that one exact moment. Readied actions let you attack while other things happen, and since the opponent is most certainly in the space for that brief moment, if you attack at that brief moment then that opponent is in your reach, and are valid.
There is nothing RAW that counters this interpretation thus far that has been discussed here.
But, to be clear, there are two unique issues being discussed simultaneously.
Whether you attack the object with a sunder, or the person holding it. Everything references the sundering of an item, as though the item was indeed the target. Except a single line, which only contradicts this by inference, and not directly. Even then, the number of instances of referring to the item as what is being sundered overwhelms this one instance.
Then there is the matter of attacking creatures in spaces they move into to affect other creatures/object while they are there briefly with readied actions. If a dragon bites a fighter from 20ft away, can that fighter have readied an action to hit him while he is within reach? This seems to be a yes. That is precisely how it plays out for when incorporeal creatures reach out of their space to attack. We have precedent for applying it universally, since for the very moment the dragon is biting, he is within reach of the fighter. Just as the incorporeal creature can be attacked for the very moment he extends into the space above him.
Now, I get that both of those are counter to the general consensus, and the initial reaction is to simply reject them because, because.
But I have combed through the rules again after my initial post and these interpretations seem legitimate. Am I advocating that we all adopt them? Hardly. But they do seem legitimate.
My whole contention here is that it isn't against RAW to interpret it as has been outlined. Indeed there seems to be RAW support for it. Certainly the common interpretation disagrees, but is RAW simply what everyone agrees to? Is RAW a majority creation, or is it the rules as written?
It has been said that this isn't permitted by RAW. What RAW?
Many of the responses thus far have been rules as expressed. It just is because we say so. But what RAW actually says that you cannot attack a creature/weapon with a readied action while it is within range during its attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remy: Did you notice the post where I stated that the description of the Strike Back feat states that it allows a person to attack the reaching attacker's limbs or weapons?
Since that description specifically mentions the ability to attack weapons, it's likely that the game's designers, at least, don't think that's possible without the feat.
I'm not sure why it is relevant. I've seen people say that Strike Back is why you cannot ready an action to attack a creature with reach who attacks you... but I do not follow why that is.
Strike back has a function; it allows you to directly attack someone who attacks you with a reach weapon if you ready an action to attack them when they attack. Not to simply sunder their weapon, but to actually attack them personally.
That is even what it says it does, both in the fluff, and mechanics...
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
If a guy stabs at you with a longspear, he is outside of your reach. He never got into range. His spear did, sure. You cannot hit him with a readied action. Not unless you have Strike Back.
I see no issue or redundancy here whatsoever.
The point is the rest of the first sentence: "by targeting their limbs or weapons".
Since that sentence mentions the ability to strike the foe's weapons (typically done with sunder), it stands to reason that you couldn't do so without the feat.
For the record… You really do target the item when you sunder. It is so prevalent in the rules, in practically every instance of sunder being talked about throughout the rules, in almost any source book imaginable.
We know the item takes the damage and is sundered. I said that a long time ago, but the person wielding the weapon is still the target per my quotes. If you can't reach the target then you can't use sunder. It does not matter that it does not make sense. It only matters what the books says.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
So with the interpretation that the target of a sunder is an item and not a creature, what does the bolded portion of the rule mean Remy?
Are, waithstrike, Wyntr...
Read what each of you is saying, compare them to one another. It is kind of funny.
Are is like "You are targeting their weapons! So no it doesn't work."
Then waithstrike is like "Remy, c'mon man, we know the target is the creature holding the weapon and not the weapon. You can't target the weapon".
Then Wyntr is like "Yo, I know you addressed this with like an epic long string of rules quotes and whatever, but... what does this mean again?"
Anyway, addressing yall specifically time:
Are:
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
This is written inclusively to give you a description of the sorts of ways you would strike back at someone with a reach weapon. Whether you catch their spear at exactly the right angle and force it back into their shoulder/chest/face/other, or lunge forward and slash at their hands/arms/other. While I subscribe to fluff being important, it is structured differently than mechanics, it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Since the 'foes' in question could potentially be many different critters, the text must necessarily be inclusive.
wraithstrike:
Per my quotes the item is the target. I have more of them than your single quote. RAW the item is the target. If the item is within 5ft you can attack it with a melee attack, per RAW.
Wyntr:
It is probably just unclear phrasing. We can extrapolate using common sense that it means "attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver's wielder".
Or even better, it could be phrased in a manner more in line with Mythic Shield Master, as that feat is clearly written. Toss in a dash of how Brutal Axe is phrased.
If a foe attempts to make a combat maneuver targeting your shield (such as sunder) and after the maneuver is resolved your shield is still in hand and not broken or destroyed, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
If the item is destroyed by this sunder attempt, no excess damage is applied to the item's wielder or other items.
So, something like:
"If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, targeting an item with a sunder combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the item’s wielder."
That is probably the cleanest form I can come up with. But I'm not a writer or anything.
Are is like "You are targeting their weapons! So no it doesn't work."
Are:
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.This is written inclusively to give you a description of the sorts of ways you would strike back at someone with a reach weapon. Whether you catch their spear at exactly the right angle and force it back into their shoulder/chest/face/other, or lunge forward and slash at their hands/arms/other. While I subscribe to fluff being important, it is structured differently than mechanics, it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Since the 'foes' in question could potentially be many different critters, the text must necessarily be inclusive.
The first sentence you attribute to me isn't actually what I was saying (or at least not what I was trying to say). My point was never that the text in question was rules text (I even said so myself the first time I mentioned it). My point was solely that the descriptive text mentioning striking weapons suggests that the designers of the game (or at least the author of that text) don't think that's normally possible to do.
Anyway, I doubt this discussion can really go any further; it doesn't seem like anyone (on any side) will be persuaded short of a developer quote.
For the record, I too think it should be possible to ready a sunder or disarm if someone with reach strikes at you with a weapon. I allowed it in my 3.5 games; it hasn't come up yet in my PF games.
@ Remy: You obviously did not read the final sentence properly.
Reach and Objects: Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that cannot reach you, no matter what action you are taking, even if it includes reaching into a threatened space. Although it might seem realistic to allow an attack in such a case, it would make the game far too complicated.
The bolded part clearly outlines the Devs intent on the matter, which you seemed to either ignore or glossed over. They agree with our interpretation, in that yes, realistically it would make sense to allow players to make attacks in such cases, but it's not something that the rules would condone. Hence why they invented the Strike Back feat, which even further expands upon the given precedent in the clause of that last sentence.
You can allow your characters to attack as such in your games, but the RAW is the LAW, and what you would allow isn't RAW. It also isn't RAI, as clearly stated by the bolded sentence, meaning you're incorrect on more than several cases.
Argue your case all you want, it can be as realistic and supposedly "in the rules" as you claim it to be, but until the Devs come in and say otherwise, their intent is clear, as well as the several subjects which back up that precedent.
|
|
In PFS you are not allowed to use house rules.Since this is an example of a player coming up with a creative response to a problem, and it making absolutely perfect sense in context, I would definitely allow sundering (or disarming) a reach weapon with a readied action at my table, even in PFS, with no feats required to do so.
I would not, however, allow attacking a creature itself (without the feat), even if they were using a natural weapon or an unarmed strike.
Correct. This is unrelated to my post though, so I am unsure why you mentioned this random fact.
I think it would be helpful to remind you, perhaps, that GMs exist for a reason and judgement calls in areas the rules are undefined and unclear is part of this reason.
If a GM had no ability to make judgement calls about the game, they should stay home and the players can just read through the scenario themselves, because a GM is not needed.
@ Remy: You obviously did not read the final sentence properly.
Reach and Objects: Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that cannot reach you, no matter what action you are taking, even if it includes reaching into a threatened space. Although it might seem realistic to allow an attack in such a case, it would make the game far too complicated.The bolded part clearly outlines the Devs intent on the matter, which you seemed to either ignore or glossed over. They agree with our interpretation, in that yes, realistically it would make sense to allow players to make attacks in such cases, but it's not something that the rules would condone. Hence why they invented the Strike Back feat, which even further expands upon the given precedent in the clause of that last sentence.
You can allow your characters to attack as such in your games, but the RAW is the LAW, and what you would allow isn't RAW. It also isn't RAI, as clearly stated by the bolded sentence, meaning you're incorrect on more than several cases.
Argue your case all you want, it can be as realistic and supposedly "in the rules" as you claim it to be, but until the Devs come in and say otherwise, their intent is clear, as well as the several subjects which back up that precedent.
AoOs. That line refers specifically to AoOs. Are readied actions AoOs? I think not.
People in this thread keep conflating AoOs and readied actions for some reason.
They ain't the same thing.
The RAW is clear? What RAW?
I keep asking what RAW. But this mysterious RAW that keeps being claimed doesn't ever seem to pop up.
Where is it? How are you going to say something is RAW and LAW and fail repeatedly to actually quote anything RAW that applies here? I doubt even understand.
Again, my position is that there isn't a RAW restriction on making a readied action against an opponent when they get close enough to attack you as they attack you. And if there is some RAW restriction, I've never seen it, and so far no one has quoted it. Or referenced it. Or even hinted at which book one might find it in.
Exclaiming something to be RAW might be fun, but why doesn't anyone try showing how it is RAW?
Rules. As. Written.
What is written? Where is it written? Link it, ya?
Show the RAW or it isn't RAW. Proof. Evidence. Pic or it didn't happen.
No one seems up to that challenge, and I suspect that is because it isn't RAW. It is simply what most people have agreed on. But... fun story... that isn't RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line doesn't refer to just the term AOO's, but also the properties that come with AOO's; in other words, reaching an enemy who would reach into your threatened square, the whole precedent of your argument.
Readying an attack, and getting an attack for free via provocation have similar subject matter, and those similarities is what we're talking about. If I can't threaten to attack into his square, why should I be able to threaten an object he manipulates from his square, of which I cannot attack into?
The object manipulation originates from their square. If it's in their possession, it's in their square to start, and upon manipulation the provocation begins. Since the provocation otherwise is not in your melee reach, you don't threaten, and therefore cannot make the attack.
I also think you need to take a step back, since you are misconstruing my statements: I've only said your claim isn't RAW, and it most certainly isn't RAI given the game's precedent with Strike Back. (Unless you want to propose that Strike Back is the next Prone Shooter, then fine. It's a crappy feat to begin with anyway.) But it doesn't break the precedent Paizo set forth, and until they come out and say "Oh, you should be able to do that," then there's nothing more to discuss, because there is otherwise no way to change your mind.
If there is ever going to be an errata for it, it should probably include this:
Normal: You cannot ready an attack against a creature outside your reach attacking into your square.
And to be honest? That should be common sense, since without the feat, that's essentially how it would normally be ran, since the feat gives the exception to that general rule.
But if you're going to sit there and say you should still be able to, even without the feat, towards objects and equipment the creature might use? Well, looks like the rules for Disarm would like a word with you.
The line doesn't refer to just the term AOO's, but also the properties that come with AOO's; in other words, reaching an enemy who would reach into your threatened square, the whole precedent of your argument.
Readying an attack, and getting an attack for free via provocation have similar subject matter, and those similarities is what we're talking about. If I can't threaten to attack into his square, why should I be able to threaten an object he manipulates from his square, of which I cannot attack into?
Look, even if they provoked from attacking into your square, the AoO happens before any of that attack is resolved, meaning that even if you can reach them during the resolution of the attack, you cannot reach them at the initiation of it. AoOs have nothing to do with this conversation. Neither does threatening, as threatening isn’t a requirement for an attack.
You don’t need to threaten to attack. That is a fact. You do need to threaten to take AoOs. Stop confusing them. You’re doing it again. We’re not discussing the similarities of AoOs and readied actions. That is not the subject of this thread, like, at all.
All we need to know are the requirements for making an attack. Are you required to threaten someone to attack them? No. Are you required to be able to AoO them? No. Then they are not relevant.
The object manipulation originates from their square. If it's in their possession, it's in their square to start, and upon manipulation the provocation begins. Since the provocation otherwise is not in your melee reach, you don't threaten, and therefore cannot make the attack.
I also think you need to take a step back, since you are misconstruing my statements: I've only said your claim isn't RAW, and it most certainly isn't RAI given the game's precedent with Strike Back. (Unless you want to propose that Strike Back is the next Prone Shooter, then fine. It's a crappy feat to begin with anyway.) But it doesn't break the precedent Paizo set forth, and until they come out and say "Oh, you should be able to do that," then there's nothing more to discuss, because there is otherwise no way to change your mind.
If there is ever going to be an errata for it, it should probably include this:
Normal: You cannot ready an attack against a creature outside your reach attacking into your square.
And to be honest? That should be common sense, since without the feat, that's essentially how it would normally be ran, since the feat gives the exception to that general rule.
But if you're going to sit there and say you should still be able to, even without the feat, towards objects and equipment the creature might use? Well, looks like the rules for Disarm would like a word with you.
What by RAW is required to attack something? Purely by RAW. What is the written requirement?
Check it out.
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
As a dragon bites into your torso, is the dragon A) Not within 5ft of you. B) Within 5 ft of you.
The answer to this question is absolutely B.
What does that really mean, though? Normally, a creature occupies a space. This is well defined. There is even a handy chart in the combat section of the CRB that lists the space and reach of all the sizes. A medium creature takes up a 5ft square, this is the space they occupy. A larger creature takes up more squares, Large takes up 4, for example. This is the space that they occupy.
It is important to note that creatures also have reach based on their size. A medium creature has a reach of 5ft, which is why they may attack an opponent within 5ft of them. A larger creature has longer reach, and can attack opponents within 10, 15, 20 or even 30ft from them depending on what category of size they fall into.
We know that a creature occupies the space that it is in, and if we can attack into any of the squares of the creature’s space we can attack that creature. Why? Because they are within 5ft. (Or however many ft our reach might be).
That is where the creature is, at all times. They are in their space. However, they can choose to reach beyond it. They can swipe, bite, swing, smash whatever they choose to within the area of their reach.
Normally, on your turn, if you wanted to attack some massive dragon, you have to get close enough so that his space falls within your reach. Not always a simple task, but that is what it is. On your turn, the dragon is only within the confines of his space, and cannot be said to be in any other place. For you to satisfy the RAW of attacking a creature within 5ft, you must get within 5ft of his space.
However. There is another point in time when you also could potentially satisfy the reach requirement. When he bites at you. Why? Because the requirement is simply “a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.” Yes that is right. The RAW requirement is only that the creature be within 5ft. As he bites at you… he is absolutely within 5ft.
Therefore, if there were some method of timing your attack for the very moment that the dragon bites at you, satisfying the reach requirement of your attack, then the dragon would be attackable. If there were just some method that you could prepare yourself ahead of time to swing at him when he got close enough, if only you could ready an action ahead of time.
Hrm. Oh! Readied Actions! They do exactly that!
It really absolutely is that simple. The RAW requirements for reaching an enemy can be met with a readied action.
Now… What exactly is this RAW that says this cannot be done? A feat? Is that all you have, a feat? A feat that does something more than what I just described?
See… Strike Back allows you to ready an action to attack an enemy that attacks you with reach weapons. Redundant you say? Hardly. That Giant with a longspear who is 60ft away is about to attack you, and you ready an action to attack him when he stabs at you.
If you do not have Strike Back, your readied action triggers, but he is too far away still. His natural reach is only 30ft, and he isn’t actually in range of your sword. He hits, kills you, game over.
With Strike Back however, your readied action triggers, and you hit that giant who is 60ft away because it doesn’t matter, you have a feat that says so. You hit! He dies. You save the village from destruction!
It isn’t a redundant feat, claiming it is just because that is the only thing you got to object with isn’t a very solid case at all. What else you got? What RAW says NO to readying an action to hit an enemy when they’re close enough to hit em?
I think the fact that no one has quoted anything RAW that backs up their assertions is a telling sign. I have, repeatedly. My position seems more valid than ever.
Look, even if they provoked from attacking into your square, the AoO happens before any of that attack is resolved, meaning that even if you can reach them during the resolution of the attack, you cannot reach them at the initiation of it. AoOs have nothing to do with this conversation. Neither does threatening, as threatening isn’t a requirement for an attack.
I'll just point out that readied actions have similar language as AoOs; they too occur before the action that triggered them:
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Look, even if they provoked from attacking into your square, the AoO happens before any of that attack is resolved, meaning that even if you can reach them during the resolution of the attack, you cannot reach them at the initiation of it. AoOs have nothing to do with this conversation. Neither does threatening, as threatening isn’t a requirement for an attack.I'll just point out that readied actions have similar language as AoOs; they too occur before the action that triggered them:
Readying an Action:You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
If it is an action that triggers them, sure. Often times it isn't an action, but a condition. (Rebolded the quote)
If you ready an action to attack anyone who gets into melee range. Someone then charges you. Your readied action triggers. A)When they’re in range of your attack. B)Before they charged in, 30ft away.
Answer is A. Because the condition that triggered your readied action was met at the exact moment they go close enough, not before they started running across the battleground.
Clearly. I'm only pointing it out because you're using similar language for AoOs to invalidate an argument.
Remy I will ask a SIMPLE question. Is the weapon or the user of the weapon making the attack of opportunity if you dont have improved Sunder?
Clearly. I'm only pointing it out because you're using similar language for AoOs to invalidate an argument.
I know why you are pointing it out. But readied actions have no requirement to be triggered from only other people’s actions.
AoOs do, by default.
They’re very distinct from each other. Some readied actions could mimic an AoO, readied actions are flexible enough to allow that. But readied actions aren’t restricted to the same things AoOs are. You get to freely choose the trigger condition for a readied action, while AoO triggers are set in stone.
That flexibility is what allows you to shank a dude who charged you with a readied action. Or allows you to heal a buddy the moment he is injured, or pretty much anything you could imagine. You just set your conditions, and the instant those conditions are met you interrupt everything and resolve your action right at the very instant.
So, if you take a readied action that triggers when someone tries to attack, that can trigger right before their attack, essentially the very first moment of their action, before it is rolled or resolved or anything. They try it, trigger readied action, then there action happen.
But, you can also set your condition to things other than actions, they’re really cool like that. I’ve used “I ready an action to shoot the first enemy that is injured”.
How can that condition ever trigger my readied action before the action that triggered it? It wasn’t an action that triggered it! So, soon as an enemy is injured, BAM, condition met. Readied action triggers, arrow flies.
There is a very strong reason why I’m saying that readied actions and AoOs are different, and that AoOs are irrelevant to this conversation. It is because they are, and because they are…
I do agree that readied actions and AoO's are different, but in both cases if you are using a melee type attack you have to be able to reach the target barring some special ability. In that regard they are the same. If you can't reach the target then you can not make an attack roll against the target.
Remy I will ask a SIMPLE question. Is the weapon or the user of the weapon making the attack of opportunity if you dont have improved Sunder?
I will reply with my own.
Does Mythic Shield Master explicitly call out sunder as a combat maneuver targeting the shield?
When you have a shield equipped, if a foe in reach makes an attack against you and misses by 5 or more that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If a foe attempts to make a combat maneuver targeting your shield (such as sunder) and after the maneuver is resolved your shield is still in hand and not broken or destroyed, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. You can only use this attack of opportunity to attack the foe with your shield.
By RAW, the item being sundered is the target of the sunder. However, the RAI of the line "If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver." is crystal clear and obvious, so obvious in fact that most people don't even pay attention to what the RAW actually is here.
The devs have said on numerous occasions that common sense must be used to read the rules. Clearly then they meant to say that the person whose item you are targeting gets an AoO against you. The actual target getting an AoO is silly. We can safely make that determination using a very, very, very small amount of common sense.
It is only a problem if you insist on it being one. The number of instances throughout the entirely of the rulebooks in which the item being sundered is described as the target is rather overwhelming. They either wrote one line a little sloppily, not even all that sloppily, just slightly…. Or they wrote every other line everywhere about sunder sloppily. I’m inclined to think it was just the one. But you can disagree if you like, that is your prerogative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remy I will ask a SIMPLE question. Is the weapon or the user of the weapon making the attack of opportunity if you dont have improved Sunder?I will reply with my own.
Does Mythic Shield Master explicitly call out sunder as a combat maneuver targeting the shield?
I will be glad to read your reply because I am sure it has some excuse built into it when you answer my question. If you can't answer such a simple question for fear of losing ground that tells everyone here exactly what they need to know. You don't even believe what you are saying, nor to do believe an official ruling will agree with you. You are just trying to win a debate.
I will be glad to read your reply because I am sure it has some excuse built into it when you answer my question. If you can't answer such a simple question for fear of losing ground that tells everyone here exactly what they need to know. You don't even believe what you are saying, nor to do believe an official ruling will agree with you. You are just trying to win a debate.Remy I will ask a SIMPLE question. Is the weapon or the user of the weapon making the attack of opportunity if you dont have improved Sunder?I will reply with my own.
Does Mythic Shield Master explicitly call out sunder as a combat maneuver targeting the shield?
I answered your question dude. You haven't answered mine. What does that say?
For you again, in case you missed the answer to your question:
By RAW, the item being sundered is the target of the sunder. However, the RAI of the line "If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver." is crystal clear and obvious, so obvious in fact that most people don't even pay attention to what the RAW actually is here.
The devs have said on numerous occasions that common sense must be used to read the rules. Clearly then they meant to say that the person whose item you are targeting gets an AoO against you. The actual target getting an AoO is silly. We can safely make that determination using a very, very, very small amount of common sense.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think all the necessary quotes have already been quoted in this thread and all that is left is deciding which interpretations are RAW and which are not... but I don't think the conversation is moving forward, so I'll just add another angle to the convo.
Would it be possible to sunder an arrow mid-flight? It would be cinematic, cool, all kinds of awesome (and according to YouTube, it's also possible IRL, though not at full velocity IIRC) and I would certainly allow it (as a houserule). How do you determine which squares the arrow flies through? Quite easy, actually, it's probably much like a line-shaped spell (I cannot find it in the rules). Each creature that is in or adjacent to the squares it flies through should be able to ready an action to sunder it, right? Very easy.
Alright, what about a Huge creature swinging its massive glaive in great, deadly arcs? The various parts of the weapon certainly move through a large number of squares, but which squares, exactly? Just one square (where you're standing?), a line as in the above example? All squares it can reach? A half-circle? It's a slashing weapon, so you cannot possibly just poke an opponent with it, right..? Again, I cannot find any mention of this in the rules, but I could certainly house-rule it if a player insisted on sundering the weapon mid-swing. The point is, the whole thing becomes very complicated if you also account for the squares the weapon presumably moves through, not just the square attacked.
From the realism/flavor point of view, it makes a lot of sense that the weapons move through a number of squares. However, if you check realism out at the door and look at the rather abstract game mechanics only, the weapon never leaves its wielder's square(s).
So, whether the target of the attack/sunder/maneuver is the weapon or the creature (looking at the quotes above, the rules aren't very consistent) is rather irrelevant. You cannot attack something you cannot reach unless you take the silly feat. Or house-rule it.
It is a very reasonable house rule.
My 1d4 cp.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However. There is another point in time when you also could potentially satisfy the reach requirement. When he bites at you. Why? Because the requirement is simply “a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.” Yes that is right. The RAW requirement is only that the creature be within 5ft. As he bites at you… he is absolutely within 5ft.
Not according to PF rules.
You mentioned how unrealistic Strike Back is when allowing you to attack the giant 60-feet away when his reach is only 30-feet. Yes, the rules are abstract that way, sacrificing realism for playability.
Another thing that the game sacrifices realism for playability is the fact that creatures stay in their own space, even when attacking beyond it. That huge dragon with a 20-foot reach bite stays completely within it's own space as it bites 20-foot from its space, unrealistic or not, without a specific written exception, such as the Strike Back feat or the part of the incorporeal rule that specifically allows you to ready an action to do this. The incorporeal rule needs to say this, because without that written exception then the normal PF rules apply, which would mean that it would be impossible, unless you had Strike Back. : )
However. There is another point in time when you also could potentially satisfy the reach requirement. When he bites at you. Why? Because the requirement is simply “a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.” Yes that is right. The RAW requirement is only that the creature be within 5ft. As he bites at you… he is absolutely within 5ft.Not according to PF rules.
You mentioned how unrealistic Strike Back is when allowing you to attack the giant 60-feet away when his reach is only 30-feet. Yes, the rules are abstract that way, sacrificing realism for playability.
Another thing that the game sacrifices realism for playability is the fact that creatures stay in their own space, even when attacking beyond it. That huge dragon with a 20-foot reach bite stays completely within it's own space as it bites 20-foot from its space, unrealistic or not, without a specific written exception, such as the Strike Back feat or the part of the incorporeal rule that specifically allows you to ready an action to do this. The incorporeal rule needs to say this, because without that written exception then the normal PF rules apply, which would mean that it would be impossible, unless you had Strike Back. : )
This is a reasonable counter argument. Can you show how you know what you say is true?
If by RAW you cannot leave your space, no matter what ever, except by move actions in 5ft increments(etc.), then I concede my objections here as unfounded. I'm just… more than a little doubtful of that being the case.
|
|
Oh, you can leave your space in other ways: teleport for example.
But your 'space' moves with you! If the dragon occupies a 15-foot square, then he only occupies one. This 'space' is not subject to quantum uncertainty! It is where it is. It can be moves by various means, but when it moves it is no longer where it was.
If the act of attacking moved that space into the square you attack, then the other rules come into play: you can't end your move in a conscious opponent's space, you have a limit on movement based on speed (that dragon can move its full speed and still attack 20-feet beyond its space with a bite attack), entering an opponent's space provokes, etc.
Picture the combat grid. There is the 15-foot square occupied by the dragon, and there is his lunch 20-feet away. When the dragon bites, do you physically move the dragon's mini into the target's space, provoking for movement? Does the dragon's space become something other than a 15-foot square every time it bites?