|
Hey everyone,
a) One of my players was adjacent to a medium sized opponent. The player had declared a Readied Action to attack the opponent when it was flanked.
b) The opponent could no longer take attacks of opportunity.
c) The Player's comrade moved PAST the opponent, creating a momentary "flank".
d) The player claimed that this momentary passing of his comrade meant that the comrade threatened the square of the opponent even though the comrade had no intention of ending his move there, thus creating flanking conditions.
It smelled fishy to me and I didn't allow it - but the player didn't see it. I'd like to hear what other GMs think about this.
Thanks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as Comrade Comrade is armed and can provide a flank on his walk through that works.
Someone walking behind you IS pretty threatening.
(now pictures a line of rogues fighting with one rogue sneaking behind everyone and a bunch of sneak attacks...)
I wouldn't have allowed it either, but on looking into it I am not sure how to support that decision.
b) is irrelevant, it either wouldn't change the outcome, or would make it a non-issue (e.g. if you tripped/KO'd the player stopping them from moving past.)
Readied action can interrupt a move action, with the move action continuing after the readied action.
So the real question is do you threaten while moving. Instinctively I would say not - but my instincts have been wrong before :)
I cannot find anything to indicate whether you threaten while moving or not, which probably means that you do still threaten, as you threaten even when you are incapable of making attacks and nothing removes that.
Your player may be right.
|
|
Interesting.
So the question is: do you threaten while moving?
The reason I didn't allow it was because of the feat "Spring Attack."
Spring attack allows you to move-attack-move and so I assumed that "attacking" and "threatening" where the same thing.
Thank you for the insights. I'll share this link with my player.
I'd love more debate on this topic. Does anyone have any ideas about threatening while moving?
Best.
Seems legit to me. A pretty inefficient use of a Readied action most of the time, but if you really need that +2 for some reason, and an ordinary flank isn't in the cards, it's an interesting option.
|
Yes, it qualified for a flank attack. Nothing in the rules states you stop threatening while moving. Player B fulfilled the conditions to flank, triggering Player A's readied action...regardless if Player B was simply moving through that square or ended up in it.
The rules do not check for the intent of your movement regarding threatened spaces.
Let's use an alternate scenario:
The Player decides to move past the Foe, to get to a room behind him. The Player has no intent of stopping to fight the Foe, only to move past him.
The Player moves. The Player triggers an AOO from the Foe. The Foe decides to trip the Player--but the Foe lacks Improved Trip. The Player would still get an AOO regardless of the intent of his movement.
|
|
The person being flanked does not know whether the moving player has spring attack, or for that matter if the moving player intends to stop and attack in the flanking position. Thus the person being flanked tries to watch both sides, which is what creates the flanking bonus.
Except that target knowledge/belief of the situation is irrelevant to flanking. They ARE flanked if an invisible creature they are unaware of is threatening them with a melee weapon from the opposite side. They are NOT flanked if they have been fooled into believing an illusionary enemy is threatening them with a melee weapon from the opposite side.
Thus, my take is that flanking works on the actual ability to threaten / attack. The moving character lacks that ability and thus does not provide flanking. Barring some exception (e.g. Spring Attack or AoO) which allows an attack during movement, they do not provide threat.
Granted, this makes no sense... but then neither do the invisible flanker and illusionary non-flanker situations. That's just how it works.
The person being flanked does not know whether the moving player has spring attack, or for that matter if the moving player intends to stop and attack in the flanking position. Thus the person being flanked tries to watch both sides, which is what creates the flanking bonus.Except that target knowledge/belief of the situation is irrelevant to flanking. They ARE flanked if an invisible creature they are unaware of is threatening them with a melee weapon from the opposite side. They are NOT flanked if they have been fooled into believing an illusionary enemy is threatening them with a melee weapon from the opposite side.
Thus, my take is that flanking works on the actual ability to threaten / attack. The moving character lacks that ability and thus does not provide flanking. Barring some exception (e.g. Spring Attack or AoO) which allows an attack during movement, they do not provide threat.
Granted, this makes no sense... but then neither do the invisible flanker and illusionary non-flanker situations. That's just how it works.
Except when it's not your turn and you have used all your AoOs you still threaten, so your actual ability to launch an attack has no bearing on whether you threaten.
So you threaten any square that you could make an attack into, even if you currently cannot make any attacks, and there are no rules that remove your ability to threaten while moving.
|
|
They are NOT flanked if they have fooled into believing an illusionary enemy is threatening them with a melee weapon from the opposite side.Are you sure about that?
In that the ability you cite is a specific exception, yes.
Except when it's not your turn and you have used all your AoOs you still threaten, so your actual ability to launch an attack has no bearing on whether you threaten.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
If you can't make a melee attack... then you don't threaten.
Seems legit to me. A pretty inefficient use of a Readied action most of the time, but if you really need that +2 for some reason, and an ordinary flank isn't in the cards, it's an interesting option.
At low levels a readied action doesn't cost you anything except moving down in the initiative: you can move ready attack rather than move attack.
Also if you're a rogue those d6's are MY PRECIOUS.
|
|
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
If you can't make a melee attack... then you don't threaten.
This was why I made the decision originally.
Yes, the moving player threatens the squares around him.No, he can't make a melee attack because he is moving past the target, not attacking it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
If you can't make a melee attack... then you don't threaten.
This was why I made the decision originally.
Yes, the moving player threatens the squares around him.
No, he can't make a melee attack because he is moving past the target, not attacking it.
Movement is one square at a time. At any point during the move they can stop and make an attack if they wish, so they CAN attack the target. The same way that if you have
Party member Goblin party member goblin party member
The party member in the middle can only attack one of those goblins, but he flanks for both of them.
|
|
The party member in the middle can only attack one of those goblins, but he flanks for both of them.
Yes, but in your example, it is not the party member in the middle's turn. So by the rules, even if its not his turn, he threatens.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
The difference with this case I'm presenting is: it is the party member in the middle's turn and he's moving past the goblins on either side. Because he's moving, he cannot make an attack on both, thus he doesn't threaten both. Best case scenario, he could only provide a flank for one if both party members on the ends readied to attack when a flank happens.
If it is not my turn and I don't have any AoOs I cannot make an attack either, do I no longer threaten?
BNWs point is bang on target, at any time I can stop and make an attack, so I actually have the potential to attack to a greater degree than I would off turn and out of AoOs.
|
|
He could have made an attack when he was in that square. He just chose not to and kept moving. There is nothing in the rules that says when you start your move action that you have to declare the square you are intending to finish your movement in. He could have chosen to stop there and make his attack. Thus he could make an attack in that square.
In fact, because of traps and readied actions and the like, you should always declare and resolve your movement one square at a time.
|
The party member in the middle can only attack one of those goblins, but he flanks for both of them.Yes, but in your example, it is not the party member in the middle's turn. So by the rules, even if its not his turn, he threatens.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
The difference with this case I'm presenting is: it is the party member in the middle's turn and he's moving past the goblins on either side. Because he's moving, he cannot make an attack on both, thus he doesn't threaten both. Best case scenario, he could only provide a flank for one if both party members on the ends readied to attack when a flank happens.
I think the thing is that you threaten regardless of your ability to make an attack right at this very moment. He'd still threaten both. I suppose you could make the argument that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." could be construed as to mean that you stop threatening when you are out of attacks of opportunity, but I've never seen nor heard of it being run that way.
I do think the "all" in "you threaten all squares" means that the middle character must threaten both. There's no support in the text that I can find for the idea that you must pick one square and threaten only that square.
|
|
If it is not my turn and I don't have any AoOs I cannot make an attack either, do I no longer threaten?
BNWs point is bang on target, at any time I can stop and make an attack, so I actually have the potential to attack to a greater degree than I would off turn and out of AoOs.
If you're out of AOOs and I walk past you - you no longer threaten. I could begin casting a spell with impunity right beside you, I think. :)
The difference with this case I'm presenting is: it is the party member in the middle's turn and he's moving past the goblins on either side. Because he's moving, he cannot make an attack on both, thus he doesn't threaten both.
Think about that for a second "he cannot make an attack on both" doesn't that describe the flankers as well as the flank sandwhich above?
Best case scenario, he could only provide a flank for one if both party members on the ends readied to attack when a flank happens.
What matters is that when his turn comes up, he COULD attack either. Thats what generates the threat.
Just because you've declared that you're going to walk over to the bahamet statue doesn't mean you can't change your mind. . The man in motion COULD, at the time he passes behind goblin 1, stop and attack. When he gets behind goblin 2 he COULD stop and attack.
1) This is the raw. You still threaten when its your turn. Moving doesn't make you not threaten
2) This is pretty realistic. The guy with a knife moving behind you is something you have to turn and confront
3) its not abusable unless you routinely fight squads of goblin linemen. Your character showed good tactics, those should pay off
|
|
The argument that 'a moving character could stop and therefor be able to attack' is an interesting one, but similarly... an unarmed character could quick draw a dagger... a paralyzed character could be cured of the condition.
IF those things happen then yes... they'd be able to attack and thus would generate threat. However, until those things DO happen they are NOT able to attack and thus do not generate threat.
If you're out of AOOs and I walk past you - you no longer threaten. I could begin casting a spell with impunity right beside you, I think. :)If it is not my turn and I don't have any AoOs I cannot make an attack either, do I no longer threaten?
BNWs point is bang on target, at any time I can stop and make an attack, so I actually have the potential to attack to a greater degree than I would off turn and out of AoOs.
Thats the thing, while you could cast a spell and I can't do a thing about it, my ally directly opposite just got +2 to hit, because flanking - I still threaten, even though for all practical purposes I cannot attack.
The argument that 'a moving character could stop and therefor be able to attack' is an interesting one, but similarly... an unarmed character could quick draw a dagger... a paralyzed character could be cured of the condition.
IF those things happen then yes... they'd be able to attack and thus would generate threat. However, until those things DO happen they are NOT able to attack and thus do not generate threat.
The man in motion is always able to attack for their entirety of the tour of the line. That attack just happens to end their movement is irrelevant.
Because of the abstraction of squares there is no difference between someone walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping vs walking 20 feet.
|
|
The difference with this case I'm presenting is: it is the party member in the middle's turn and he's moving past the goblins on either side. Because he's moving, he cannot make an attack on both, thus he doesn't threaten both.
Think about that for a second "he cannot make an attack on both" doesn't that describe the flankers as well as the flank sandwhich above?
Best case scenario, he could only provide a flank for one if both party members on the ends readied to attack when a flank happens.What matters is that when his turn comes up, he COULD attack either. Thats what generates the threat.
Just because you've declared that you're going to walk over to the bahamet statue doesn't mean you can't change your mind. . The man in motion COULD, at the time he passes behind goblin 1, stop and attack. When he gets behind goblin 2 he COULD stop and attack.
1) This is the raw. You still threaten when its your turn. Moving doesn't make you not threaten
2) This is pretty realistic. The guy with a knife moving behind you is something you have to turn and confront
3) its not abusable unless you routinely fight squads of goblin linemen. Your character showed good tactics, those should pay off
So, my PC in the middle is moving square-by-square between the goblin flank-o-matic sandwich.
When my PC is between the two goblins, he can only make one attack per round because he moved. Therefore, he must choose a target. Thus, only one of the PCs on either end would get the flank bonus because only one goblin can be attacked by the middle PC.
So the sticking point for me is the meaning of the phrase: "can make a melee attack". The middle PC can only make one attack and must chose a target.
It boils down to the difference between "can" and "could".
BTW: Thank you for this discussion, it's helping me to get to the bottom of this. I don't mean to come off as needlessly antagonistic - I'm just trying to nail this down.
|
|
Because of the abstraction of squares there is no difference between someone walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping vs walking 20 feet.
Except there IS a difference.
Walking 5 feet and stopping is a move action (or 5' step). You only get two move actions per turn. Thus, it is impossible to 'walk 5 feet and stop' four times in the same round. Walking 20' and stopping, however, is just a single move action for most characters.
|
|
Thats the thing, while you could cast a spell and I can't do a thing about it, my ally directly opposite just got +2 to hit, because flanking - I still threaten, even though for all practical purposes I cannot attack.If you're out of AOOs and I walk past you - you no longer threaten. I could begin casting a spell with impunity right beside you, I think. :)If it is not my turn and I don't have any AoOs I cannot make an attack either, do I no longer threaten?
BNWs point is bang on target, at any time I can stop and make an attack, so I actually have the potential to attack to a greater degree than I would off turn and out of AoOs.
I see your point. The problem isn't the flanking per se, it's the fact that one of the two PCs sandwiching my hapless mage is in motion.
Because of the abstraction of squares there is no difference between someone walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping, walking 5 feet and stopping vs walking 20 feet.Except there IS a difference.
Walking 5 feet and stopping is a move action (or 5' step). You only get two move actions per turn. Thus, it is impossible to 'walk 5 feet and stop' four times in the same round. Walking 20' and stopping, however, is just a single move action for most characters.
Stopping is not an action.
There is no momentum.There is no difference between someone standing still in a square accross from you when you take a readied attack and someone that has just moved from one square to another square and intends to move onto a third square. They have the same threatening rules.
I see your point. The problem isn't the flanking per se, it's the fact that one of the two PCs sandwiching my hapless mage is in motion.Thats the thing, while you could cast a spell and I can't do a thing about it, my ally directly opposite just got +2 to hit, because flanking - I still threaten, even though for all practical purposes I cannot attack.If you're out of AOOs and I walk past you - you no longer threaten. I could begin casting a spell with impunity right beside you, I think. :)If it is not my turn and I don't have any AoOs I cannot make an attack either, do I no longer threaten?
BNWs point is bang on target, at any time I can stop and make an attack, so I actually have the potential to attack to a greater degree than I would off turn and out of AoOs.
Party tactics, teamwork, and good planning are something to be encouraged and applauded, not lamented, in your players. Most parties work together like a herd of cats
|
|
There is no difference between someone standing still in a square accross from you when you take a readied attack and someone that has just moved from one square to another square and intends to move onto a third square. They have the same threatening rules.
Threatening requires that you "can attack". In most cases (e.g. barring Spring Attack, Dancing Dervish, AoO, et cetera) a character that is going to move on to a new square cannot attack... while a character who intends to remain in place can. That's a difference... and it's directly tied to the requirements for threatening.
Yes, the character could change their mind and choose to stop / not move on to a new square... and the moment they do so they would threaten. Just as an unarmed character who was preparing to cast a spell could change their mind and quick draw a dagger... and therefore threaten. However, until they actually DO make the change they cannot attack and do not threaten.
They can attack. They are not going to, but they can. That's all that matters. Stopping is not an action. You do not have to declare your movement over at any point. Its even possible to see the results of your partners readied action before deciding whether you want to stop there and swing at the same target or keep going.
Stopping is generally accepted as the end of your movement. It bogs down play to ask if the player's move is over after a certain amount of inactivity. For beginner's getting used to situational positioning I make an exception.
Mim, the man in motion walks behind the goblin
His turn gets interrupted by Wam's readied action triggeringAt what point has Mim lost his ability to choose whether to attack the same goblin as Wam or continue walking?