|
I am moving this over from a blog begun from a post by Mike Brock on the topic of new Animal Companion Tricks in the Animal Archive, in particular the flank trick at the suggestion of Paz (thanks Paz).
Pirate Rob wrote:
"The problem with the Animal Archive is it does change what animals can do and creates a bunch of weird situations where a player who doesn't have it plays with a GM that doesn't have it and maybe their animal flanks maybe it doesn't (up to GM) but then that player plays with a GM that does have the book and then their companion never flanks."
This seems like as good a place as any to try to get clarification of something:
One of my GMs and many of the blog contributors that I have found while researching this seem to insist that flanking has something to do with the awareness of the creature being flanked or even the awareness of the creature doing the flanking.
According to the Core Rulebook:
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. ...
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
Nothing in the description/definition of Flanking has anything to do with awareness, only with being threatened (which also has nothing to do with awareness).
The rules governing attacks of opportunity seem to provide the best definition of a square being threatened:
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."
It seems to me that any creature that is in a square that is threatened on two opposite sides is flanked, and any enemy character or creature in one of those flanking positions that attacks the character or creature in the flanked square enjoys the flanking bonus as long as the ally in the opposing square actually threatens - isn't unarmed or casting or something making a melee attack impossible.
What can the awareness or lack of awareness of the flanked character or creature possibly have to do with its flanked condition (or status or whatever you choose to label it)?
That was posted last night.
I was realizing this morning that the same dispute seems to go on around whether or not one of the flankers is aware of the other, for instance due to invisibility.
It seems to me that, as the definitions of flanking and threatened are written, the only person who needs to be aware that a creature is flanked, for that creature to be flanked and for the flankers to get their flanking bonus, is the GM. This should be just as true for a PC that is flanked by one or more invisible enemies, that it absolutely does not know about as it is for an enemy creature that is flanked by one or more invisible PCs that the other PC shouldn't know about but does.
Come to think of it, if two PCs had reason to believe that there might be an invisible enemy in the space between them and as a result attacked that space, even though there is probably a miss chance, they should get a flanking bonus on their respective attacks because that square is threatened by both of them on opposite sides.
I asked this question in the blog that was begun by Mike Brock in his article "Animals and Their Tricks" Monday, March 11, 2013, because it first came up for me in the context of companions and flanking and that was the only thread I could find that was specifically dealing with this topic and was started by Mike Brock, the person I would like to get the answer from.
|
|
This was the response I got from Paz in that forum thread:
You would be better off asking in the rules forum rather than a PFS thread that's been dormant for nearly a year.
To answer your question, flanking has nothing to do with awareness. Maybe your GM is getting confused around the necessary situation for a sneak attack, or something similar.
In fact, the description of sneak attack in the CRB makes it very clear that flanking and awareness are two different things:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.If you could only flank when the target wasn't aware (and therefore denied their dex bonus) then the last part of that sentence wouldn't be needed.
Nothing about flanking says being aware for any party, Just if they are being threatened opposite of you.
I feel the flanking trick would be for the companion to purposely move in to flank instead of closest square.
|
|
It is possible that this language is part of the confusion.
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
I think some people are trying to think of flanking as a deliberate, cooperative activity on the part of the attackers (hence the focus on awareness), misinterpreting the use of the phrase "help an attacker".
But the rule seems clear that "flanked" is a passive state for the one being attacked that either does or does not exist, due to circumstances. Certainly it is in the interest of the attackers to try to create those circumstances deliberately, but the circumstantial state exists even when it is created accidentally and unknowingly, at least according to the definitions in the Rulebook.
|
|
I have no doubt that it has been hashed out for years, but there are still people who believe that the result of this hashing out leans toward the awareness requirement, so clearly it hasn't been settled. I would love to see a decisive ruling by Mike Brock, at least for the purposes of Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
|
|
I am going to include a post from a blog on invisible flanking and my reaction to it.
Interesting question. RAW, obviously, any creature which would otherwise provide flanking continues to do so when invisible.
But it does seem that the defender's perceptions ought to be relevant to whether or not flanking occurs, since it's supposed to represent distraction or some such, and if you don't know someone's there, how can they be distracting to you? So, being invisible might not remove flanking, but if you hadn't been detected yet, it would seem odd for you to give flanking. Logically. Obviously, the rules ignore this and probably should.
This must be part of the problem - an assumption of what flanking means (distraction or some such).
Flanked ONLY means a disadvantage gained by having an enemy on opposite sides, both of which are impossible to defend against simultaneously, unless you have specific feats that let you do so, thus negating flanking.
Flanked is a passive state of a creature under attack, which is due to circumstance - that circumstance is defined as having melee attackers in threatening positions on opposite sides of you. Neither the definitions of flank or threaten (see attacks of opportunity) require awareness on anybody's part - they are states or conditions of circumstance. Obviously, it is in the interest of multiple attackers to try to deliberately create this disadvantaged circumstance for their enemy, but the state exists even if it is created accidentally and unknowingly (ie you are not aware of it).
The bonus is created by the disadvantaged circumstance, not any creatures awareness of it.
And, by the way, my interest is not in whether or not invisible creatures can flank, although answers to that question are informative, my interest is in whether awareness has anything at all to do with flanking.
|
Pathfinder rules only allow what they say they allow, its a permissive system.
An animal has tricks. You command the animal to attack, it moves directly to the creature to attack. This is true whether you have animal archive or not. You can not tell your animal exactly where to move without using the other tricks and positioning yourself.
Does this mean the animal can't flank? No it just means it will only do so when a flanking positions is the most direct route to attacking a target. Can you make it get into a flanking position? If you have animal archive yes, there is a trick. If you don't then you would have to use the come and heel commands to move your animal to the appropriate position.
I run frequently in PFS and I will have the player tell me what order is given then I will move the animal companion to what I consider to be the most appropriate position, if the has suggestions, I will consider them, like yah he could do that but he doesn't like fire so I think he would go around the other way away from the fire elemental, would probably work.
This also applies to AoOs and avoiding them. An animal would probably travel straight to the target, regardless of AoOs, and not use the pathing potential used by players. I would allow acrobatics to avoid, since that instinctual but the distance rather than the animal would determine if at full or half speed.
|
And, by the way, my interest is not in whether or not invisible creatures can flank, although answers to that question are informative, my interest is in whether awareness has anything at all to do with flanking.
Well, if two creatures under the effects of Greater Invisibility are on opposite sides of their target, they get the +2 to-hit for flanking, so clearly awareness of the target is not important.
This is one of those cases where rules elements take precedent over in-character observations.
|
|
Well, if two creatures under the effects of Greater Invisibility are on opposite sides of their target, they get the +2 to-hit for flanking, so clearly awareness of the target is not important.
This is one of those cases where rules elements take precedent over in-character observations.
You had me all hopeful, but neither of the spell descriptions - Invisibility nor Greater Invisibility mention a flanking bonus.
Since it is not in the spell description, what is your reference for that statement please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A creature threatens under certain circumstances (see page 180 of the Core Rulebook). It may not seem threatening to you, but that's not how threatened squares work in the rules. An invisible or hidden creature still threatens, because it could and might make and attack in a creature within those squares.How about an explicit interaction with flanking?
When GMing, I've always ruled that you don't provide flank if you're invisible or stealthed because the flanking rules are predicated on the target being "threatened."
If I'm totally unaware of something's existence, it isn't going to be very threatening to me.
Invisibility has nothing to do with flanking. If you'd be flanking if you weren't invisible, you're flanking when you are invisible.
|
|
Pathfinder rules only allow what they say they allow, its a permissive system.
An animal has tricks. You command the animal to attack, it moves directly to the creature to attack. This is true whether you have animal archive or not. You can not tell your animal exactly where to move without using the other tricks and positioning yourself.
Does this mean the animal can't flank? No it just means it will only do so when a flanking positions is the most direct route to attacking a target. Can you make it get into a flanking position? If you have animal archive yes, there is a trick. If you don't then you would have to use the come and heel commands to move your animal to the appropriate position.
I run frequently in PFS and I will have the player tell me what order is given then I will move the animal companion to what I consider to be the most appropriate position, if the has suggestions, I will consider them, like yah he could do that but he doesn't like fire so I think he would go around the other way away from the fire elemental, would probably work.
This also applies to AoOs and avoiding them. An animal would probably travel straight to the target, regardless of AoOs, and not use the pathing potential used by players. I would allow acrobatics to avoid, since that instinctual but the distance rather than the animal would determine if at full or half speed.
My first adventure with my new Animal Companion - I pointed at the target with the command Attack. I moved the miniature rather than the GM, but I took the most direct route and his last step put him on a trap. He was rendered unconscious before his next move and the battle lasted long enough for the trap (with a continuous lightning effect) to kill it, since nobody could get to it to drag it off the trap. It was horrible, *sniff**sob*. I agree, whether it is the player or the GM, they need to move the creature in the most direct and sensible manner. It isn't intelligent enough to know what flanking and attacks of opportunity are, unless you train it in the new flank trick. And even then, it is still going to move in the way that you would expect it to move, based on animal intelligence, not in the way that you want it to move.
|
|
Invisibility has nothing to do with flanking. If you'd be flanking if you weren't invisible, you're flanking when you are invisible.A creature threatens under certain circumstances (see page 180 of the Core Rulebook). It may not seem threatening to you, but that's not how threatened squares work in the rules. An invisible or hidden creature still threatens, because it could and might make and attack in a creature within those squares.How about an explicit interaction with flanking?
When GMing, I've always ruled that you don't provide flank if you're invisible or stealthed because the flanking rules are predicated on the target being "threatened."
If I'm totally unaware of something's existence, it isn't going to be very threatening to me.
This is exactly what I am dealing with, and why my question is what it is - GMs who think flanking and threatening depend on the perception of the one under attack or even on the perception of one of the attackers (when the other is invisible). Perception is irrelevant, only the circumstances are relevant.
|
|
It's not Mike Brock's place to create rules, or even issue rules interpretations, unless they specifically affect the PFS campaign.
What you're looking for is a response from the Pathfinder Design Team (aka the PDT).
I am concerned with PFSOP, but I will be happy to get a response from a member of the PDt.
Hopefully the reason that there is a Rules blog is that members of the PDT periodically monitor and give their rulings on questions like this. Are they identified as such when they comment in the blogs?
|
|
Is your question sufficiently answered, now, with fretgod's quote?
Now that I have clicked on Stephen Radney-MacFarland's link and I can see that he is a Paizo designer, I guess that does seem to settle the question.
A creature threatens under certain circumstances (see page 180 of the Core Rulebook). It may not seem threatening to you, but that's not how threatened squares work in the rules. An invisible or hidden creature still threatens, because it could and might make and attack in a creature within those squares.How about an explicit interaction with flanking?
When GMing, I've always ruled that you don't provide flank if you're invisible or stealthed because the flanking rules are predicated on the target being "threatened."
If I'm totally unaware of something's existence, it isn't going to be very threatening to me.
His reference to page 180 is what I have quoted above:
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."
Yup. That's all that is required to flank; your visibility or lack thereof is irrelevant. Can you strike a creature with a melee attack? If yes, you threaten.