Couldn't you already prepare an action to strike a creature's limbs as it attacked you (even though it might have reach)?
This feat seems to allow you to do something you already could do (or should be able to do).
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't you already prepare an action to strike a creature's limbs as it attacked you (even though it might have reach)?
This feat seems to allow you to do something you already could do (or should be able to do).
While you can ready an action to attack a foe that attacks you, you still need to have reach to that foe to attack them. You can't prepare an action to strike an attacking creature's limbs because that more or less negates the whole point of a creature having reach in the first place.
This feat lets you do just that, but it has a hefty prerequisite.
You can't replay that scene literally anyway unless the monster is written up like the hydra and allows its limbs to be sundered, because normally you can't cut away a creature's limbs.
Couldn't you already prepare an action to strike a creature's limbs as it attacked you (even though it might have reach)?
This feat seems to allow you to do something you already could do (or should be able to do).
While you can ready an action to attack a foe that attacks you, you still need to have reach to that foe to attack them. You can't prepare an action to strike an attacking creature's limbs because that more or less negates the whole point of a creature having reach in the first place.
This feat lets you do just that, but it has a hefty prerequisite.
Well that's not the way it worked in d20 D&D. Shame. It's a waste of a feat slot for a weak ability that you should get for free.
I'm not so sure that ever worked. Even if the creature with reach attacks, and you ready an action to attack them when they attack you, by game rules, the creature never actually moves out of its square, so even when the held action is triggered, the character's base isn't in reach.
|
I'm not so sure that ever worked. Even if the creature with reach attacks, and you ready an action to attack them when they attack you, by game rules, the creature never actually moves out of its square, so even when the held action is triggered, the character's base isn't in reach.
While true, it also just makes sense that if you are striking at the limbs the base should not have to be in reach.
I would allow it as a GM but also allow the Monster a REF save to avoid damage all together. Probably use the total to hit score as the REF target. I think I would also increase the AC from 2-4 to represent the smaller target.
I'd also allow readying and action to attack a limb. You already lose iterative attacks.
Anyway, there are a lot of instances where there are feats that enable you to do things some GMs will allow you to do without it, like Weapon Finesse in my games.
You should be able to hold AN action to strike at a reach opponent, 1 attack, the FEAT should allow a Full attack against the reach opponent.
That's how it "should" work. IMmHO
|
|
If a creature's limb is hitting you, you do have reach to that creature. According to the core rules rules, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. The rules don't specify which body parts or game mechanical space constructs must be within 5 feet. As long as some part of the opponent is within 5 feet, you can attack it.
So what you're saying is an opponent with reach is standing in a non-adjacent square. As it attacks you (since you're within his reach), he moves an arm or whatever into the adjacent square. If you've readied an action to attack its arm, you should be allowed to do so because the arm is within an adjacent square and thus within your reach.
So, given this, you'd be ok with the player taking his attack of opportunity against the opponent's limb as the creature draws it's limb back to it's square (thus provoking due to leaving a threatened square)?
What happens if the creature decides not to pull its limb back (because it doesn't want to provoke a free attack)? Does a creature that normally occupies 4 squares on the battlemat now occupy 5? Or do you subtract away one of the other 4 squares to represent the fact that the creature hasn't spontaneously grown another square larger, just shifted it's mass by a square?
-Skeld
First, these are all problems, as I see them, with allowing the "readied limb strike" tactic.
First off, if you mention that the character is giving up a full attack option in order to get off one attack without getting within the creature's reach, one of the problems you have is that from level 1 to 5, you aren't giving up anything. So reach means nothing to a character from level 1 through 5.
Further, now that you are in Pathfinder mode, you can use your standard action to vital strike, which is much less of a sacrifice than giving up a full attack for one attack.
Finally, to address the "realism" aspect of arguments, the limb is not only smaller than the actual creature, its not in the intervening square for the entirety of its turn, its only there for a brief few seconds out of the whole round.
I honestly thing that this is one of those things you just have to either accept as part of the abstraction of d20 combat, or houserule it. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I think its just too much of a technicality work around to cheapen what should be a dangerous ability to have.
Also, to turn this around, lets say you take Lunge, as a player . . . are you okay with your GM readying an attack to negate that feat, and still sticking you with a -2 to AC?
I can respect that others may not have this view, but the system, as written, works fine for me.
So, given this, you'd be ok with the player taking his attack of opportunity against the opponent's limb as the creature draws it's limb back to it's square (thus provoking due to leaving a threatened square)?No, because the attacker hasn't left any threatened squares. The areas occupied by its space and reach are unchanged by its attack.
You can't have it both ways, dude. Either the creature is in that 5' square and thus you can attack it, or it isn't in that 5' square and thus can't take an AOO for leaving it.
|
|
The areas occupied by its space and reach are unchanged by its attack.
Ok, that's what I thought. So if the opponent's occupied squares are unchanged by the attack, and none of those squares are adjacent to the character in question, how can the character make an attack (readied or otherwise) against , or successfully hit, a creature that doesn't occupy the space he's attacking?
(You have to measure threatened squares against space and reach, not real world distances and common sense judgments about exact positioning, because threatened squares are purely game mechanical constructs.)
And I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, EM, I'm just trying to point out that readying any action to attack a reach opponent's limb when it attacks a character is an attempt to add "realism" to something that's already an "abstraction of gaming." I also think, in terms of game mechanics, it's letting a player do something that the rules don't intend for them to do. Allowing this creates alot of weird logical questions that you then need to use further abstractions to wave away.
Just my thoughts. This is the kinda thing houserules are for. :)
-Skeld
My answer as a longtime DM to this argument is simple.
Get a reach weapon. Stop whining.
Reach is a mechanic I have seen both NPC's and PC's make clever use of, and if players feel it is unfair, they are not thinking outside of their self-imposed box.
Couldn't you already prepare an action to strike a creature's limbs as it attacked you (even though it might have reach)?
This feat seems to allow you to do something you already could do (or should be able to do).
While you can ready an action to attack a foe that attacks you, you still need to have reach to that foe to attack them. You can't prepare an action to strike an attacking creature's limbs because that more or less negates the whole point of a creature having reach in the first place.
This feat lets you do just that, but it has a hefty prerequisite.
Have to agree with the OP here, even after James' online clarification here in the forums.
After reading all the PRD stuff about readying and reach, there's nothing that makes it clear one way or the other that you cannot attack a creature that's attacking you - by definition it's limbs are within your reach - it's hitting you. To attack a creature, it has to be within reach, and if it's smacking you in the head with a tentacle, by golly it's in reach for that moment :)
It just means that you're burning a readied action to hit it - and if it doesn't hit you, you're wasting an action. There is a tradeoff there - it certainly doesn't make reach pointless, since you're limited to a standard action. Yeah, at low levels that's roughly equivalent, but mechanically I can't see the harm in it - it seems more convoluted to try to prohibit it.
After all, that's kind of the whole point of readying an action. You're giving up part of your full action set available in order to be ready for something that could happen.
Consider this: suppose there's a PC facing an opponent with a lasso, and the PC says "I ready an action to strike at the lasso if he tries to get me with it." By the same logic, this also would be disallowed, and yet it seems the very essence of heroic fantasy.
Also by the same logic, a creature with reach could strike at you through a blade barrier with impunity. After all, it isn't passing through the blade barrier (the RAW for blade barrier say "Any creature passing through the wall ..."), and thus it's safe, as its natural weapons cannot be attacked by the above logic.
Now, for what it's worth, I think the whole AoO theory about natural reach weapons provoking an AoO doesn't work. Attacking doesn't provoke, movement does. The creature is not moving, it's attacking, thus no AoO is available.
Given the hefty cost of the feat, I would expect something more along the lines of the following: it allows a single counter-attack against a creature with reach for each attempted strike at you - that makes a lot more sense for a feat with a minimum level of 11 attached to it. So a hydra strikes at the 12th level fighter twice, and even though the fighter's at +12/+7/+2, he only gets two counterattacks - he has to use the third on some other opponent, if possible.
Fine, here's a question for all the "oh sure you can attack the limb" proponents: what is the AC of the limb? How do you determine said AC? What is its Dexterity score, its armor modifier, its natural armor, its size category?
[W]hat is the AC of the limb? How do you determine said AC? What is its Dexterity score, its armor modifier, its natural armor, its size category?Unless its description says otherwise, a creature's limbs have the same AC as its body.
"But a creature's limb should be a different size category than its body."
A creature's vital organs should also be a different size category than the creature itself, yet sneak attacks target the same AC as non-sneak attacks. If its okay for a monster's organs to use the same AC as the whole monster, it should also be okay for the monster's limbs to use the same AC.
Sneak Attack doesn't target vital organs, it targets vital spots, and for all we know every creature has dozens and dozens of vital spots, any one of which is accessible from anywhere on the creature.
What you're asking for is a called shot with no penalties. It's total munchkinism.
So, given this, you'd be ok with the player taking his attack of opportunity against the opponent's limb as the creature draws it's limb back to it's square (thus provoking due to leaving a threatened square)?
Moving the arm back is part of the attack action, not a move action. Thus, it doesn't provoke.
What happens if the creature decides not to pull its limb back (because it doesn't want to provoke a free attack)? Does a creature that normally occupies 4 squares on the battlemat now occupy 5? Or do you subtract away one of the other 4 squares to represent the fact that the creature hasn't spontaneously grown another square larger, just shifted it's mass by a square?
Pulling the arm back is part of the attack action. It does the entire attack action or none of it, so there's no change that its arm ends outside its space. (Well, if your attack rendered it unconscious, then the arm is out there. But that's unlikely to matter, unless there's a cleric next to you that wants to heal it.)
No, what I'm doing is following the rules. Read the melee attack section of the Core Rules again. It says you can attack creatures within 5 feet.
But it does not say you can attack parts of creatures within 5 feet. For example, dragons are typically much longer, nose to tail tip, than their space indicates; you cannot say "I'm attacking the tail and it stretches out 10 feet behind the dragon!" because the dragon does not occupy the space you say it occupies. The creature occupies its space. If its space is not within 5 feet (or your reach, anyway), you cannot attack it with a melee attack. Barring feats like Strike Back or class abilities, anyway.
I agree with the folks who say that you should be able to attack a creature that's reaching into your square. That shouldn't cost a feat.
Otherwise you end up with the situation where a human can grapple a cat without any risk of being scratched or bit. And I can assure you that that is not the case.
;-)
Otherwise you end up with the situation where a human can grapple a cat without any risk of being scratched or bit.
Nope. I can think of one method of grappling a house cat with no risk whatsoever of getting scratched or bit (grab em by the scruff of their neck), and besides, the rules say you can attack anyone grappling you.
|
Otherwise you end up with the situation where a human can grapple a cat without any risk of being scratched or bit.Nope. I can think of one method of grappling a house cat with no risk whatsoever of getting scratched or bit (grab em by the scruff of their neck), and besides, the rules say you can attack anyone grappling you.
This is because when you grapple someone you move into their square temporarily to initiate the grapple. This movement provokes an attack of opportunity.
I don't need battle grids and miniatures and game rules to tell me that. When common sense reaches into my space and smacks me upside the head, I can tell it's there.
I love that you only use "common sense" when it's convenient to you. Common sense tells me that A) you are not intended by the rules to be able to attack parts of creatures as a general case (thus the Strike Back feat and the lack of called shot rules), and B) if you're attacking a part of a creature, it's going to have a different AC and a different amount of hit points compared to the creature as an abstract whole.
Get a reach weapon. Stop whining.
While I agree with this notion most of the time, there are situations where you cannot normally have a reach big enough to deal with certain threats. For instance, huge dragons have a 15 ft. reach -- and they fly. Yes, there's enlarge person. . . but I don't think it should be a requirement for every player to have permanent enlarge person q:
The feat is balanced. In 3.5 I gave the ability to ready actions to hit a monster with reach -- but in retrospect I do think that flying smart creatures with 15 ft. reach should be pretty freaking hard. The way I ran it in 3.5 made virtually impossible encounters possible -- maybe that means the feat is important (:
I probably shouldn't try to follow up on my own quip, but let me clear up some misconceptions:
Otherwise you end up with the situation where a human can grapple a cat without any risk of being scratched or bit.Nope. I can think of one method of grappling a house cat with no risk whatsoever of getting scratched or bit (grab em by the scruff of their neck), and besides, the rules say you can attack anyone grappling you.
Huh? "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." (Emphasis mine.)
This is because when you grapple someone you move into their square temporarily to initiate the grapple.
No, not in Pathfinder. "If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."
I probably shouldn't try to follow up on my own quip, but let me clear up some misconceptions:
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to
your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made
with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This
damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
I probably shouldn't try to follow up on my own quip, but let me clear up some misconceptions:Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to
your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made
with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This
damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
That's something a cat can do if it is grappling me, not if it is being grappled by me. Please read the "If You Are Grappled" section for an explanation of what a grappled creature can do.
I have reach on a cat and if I try to grab it, it might scratch me. But I have never been scratched any of the dozens of times I have punted them down my alley. But since I had surprise and the cats are flat footed, not sure this helps. I assume I had surprise, because they should run like hell if they see me headed their way. And that is "in real life."
|
I have reach on a cat and if I try to grab it, it might scratch me. But I have never been scratched any of the dozens of times I have punted them down my alley. But since I had surprise and the cats are flat footed, not sure this helps. I assume I had surprise, because they should run like hell if they see me headed their way. And that is "in real life."
-2
Leave the poor cats alone!
... A) you are not intended by the rules to be able to attack parts of creatures as a general case (thus the Strike Back feat and the lack of called shot rules)
"I hit the creature in the eye" is a called shot. "It's hitting me, so clearly it's close enough for me to hit it" is not a called shot, any more than a sneak attack is a called shot. In my opinion, that is common sense - how can it hit me without being close enough to hit me?
B) if you're attacking a part of a creature, it's going to have a different AC and a different amount of hit points compared to the creature as an abstract whole.
I have never seen any part of either 3.5e or Pathfinder RAW that state that different parts of creatures, in general, have different ACs, though a few rare monsters tend to have specialized rules (e.g. roper). If such rules existed, then clearly armor would be a lot more complicated, and there would be a lot more of a difference between a chain shirt and chainmail than armor bonus and the various penalties.
Nor do the rules, with a few monster-specific exceptions, support the concept of "hit points per body part." A creature has X hit points and that's it.
I have never seen any part of either 3.5e or Pathfinder RAW that state that different parts of creatures, in general, have different ACs, though a few rare monsters tend to have specialized rules (e.g. roper). If such rules existed, then clearly armor would be a lot more complicated, and there would be a lot more of a difference between a chain shirt and chainmail than armor bonus and the various penalties.
Nor do the rules, with a few monster-specific exceptions, support the concept of "hit points per body part." A creature has X hit points and that's it.
This is precisely my point. The rules do not support attacking specific parts of creatures. You attack the entire creature unless the creature has specific rules that state otherwise (hydras, ropers, krakens, etc)
Common sense indicates that attacking only a specific body part to the exclusion of all others would be more difficult than simply attacking the most expedient target presented by the creature. Yet Epic Meepo suggests using common sense to allow breaking the rules by targeting a specific body party and at the same time ignoring common sense by making that attack have the same difficulty as attacking the much easier target.
*Bump*
After reading some of the different rules interpretations in this thread, I've decided that I still stand by my original statements.
This is precisely my point. The rules do not support attacking specific parts of creatures. You attack the entire creature unless the creature has specific rules that state otherwise (hydras, ropers, krakens, etc)
Common sense indicates that attacking only a specific body part to the exclusion of all others would be more difficult than simply attacking the most expedient target presented by the creature. Yet Epic Meepo suggests using common sense to allow breaking the rules by targeting a specific body party and at the same time ignoring common sense by making that attack have the same difficulty as attacking the much easier target.
I'm not sure who's talking about attacking a "specific body part" other than you.
Both the OP and myself are saying, "hey, if it can hit me, I can hit it back." I have not seen any claims that such an attack would need special AC, or alternate hit points, or anything like that, except by folks trying to argue that such an attack should not be allowed.
If I ready an action to "attack if it attacks me", it seems a rather thin argument to label that a called shot, and then say it's disallowed because it's a called shot.
I don't REALLY kick cats, just wanted to point out scratching a hand grabbing one and scratching a much faster kick is not the same. Different AC? Yes.
The fact is D&D, as a system, uses a simplified combat model. If you can't accept this and move on, how do you handle magic? If I ready an action why can't I "sunder" a spear? If I can sunder a spear why not a thrown spear? And why not an arrow? And so on.
I'm not sure who's talking about attacking a "specific body part" other than you.
Both the OP and myself are saying, "hey, if it can hit me, I can hit it back." I have not seen any claims that such an attack would need special AC, or alternate hit points, or anything like that, except by folks trying to argue that such an attack should not be allowed.
If I ready an action to "attack if it attacks me", it seems a rather thin argument to label that a called shot, and then say it's disallowed because it's a called shot.
Tell me then, what are you attacking? Epic Meepo has clearly stated that the creature does not move in the time it is making its attack, so the creature is still in the space it occupies beyond your reach. So, clearly, you are not attacking the creature.
Everyone I've seen that supports this has supported attacking the part of the creature which is used in the attack on you. Limbs for claw attacks, tails for tail slaps, etc. This is entirely unsupported by the rules. The rules indicate that you can only attack a creature whose space is within your reach.
The fact is D&D, as a system, uses a simplified combat model. If you can't accept this and move on, how do you handle magic? If I ready an action why can't I "sunder" a spear?
You can :)
If I can sunder a spear why not a thrown spear? And why not an arrow? And so on.
I'd say the only thing preventing you from sundering a thrown spear is a lack of rules for it. Given that Deflect Arrows is a feat you have to have to avoid ranged attacks (and even that only allows one per round), I personally as a GM would not have a huge issue with someone deciding that they wanted to sunder the missile weapon rather than simply deflecting it.
Now, cool as that might be, it would probably be harder than merely deflecting it - rather than the auto-deflect from the feat, it would turn into a sunder attempt, which could fail and leave you hit with the darn thing anyways, and all of that bother would actually have the same net effect, thus raising the "why bother" question :)
----
Tell me then, what are you attacking? Epic Meepo has clearly stated that the creature does not move in the time it is making its attack, so the creature is still in the space it occupies beyond your reach. So, clearly, you are not attacking the creature.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
Unless it's Darth Vader and it's using force choke on me, I'm attacking the creature, which is hitting me with an appendage, which by definition is within 5 feet of me since it's touching my body. The RAW says nothing about hitting a creature's space. It says you can strike opponents within 5 feet. Since there's no difference between parts of a creature (as we both agree), a creature's arm or tentacle is just as good as its torso.
The only quibble here is what the mechanic is for doing such a hit.
Point 1: There is a feat that allows you to do so, therefore you must not be able to do so without the feat.
This is a powerful argument. However, if that is such an all-encompassing rule, why the heck is the rule buried in the existence of such a feat?
Point 2: Readied actions allow you to interrupt other actions, such as charges and the like.
Now, unless there's some magic to reach attacks, I see nothing in the RAW that would prevent an attack against a creature if you were readied.
Yes, that's interpretation, but in my mind that's a far simpler interpretation than a blanket "you can't do that."
Go back to my first post and read the lasso and the blade barrier examples and see how well they fit the two interpretations ... such examples have a big part in how the rules should be used.
And as you say, common sense plays a large part. If I can't attack a tentacle that is clubbing me to death, that sounds a lot like "because I said so" and not much like common sense.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I am in agreement with Epic Meepo on this one, although I see Zurai (and others') points. If you are readying an action to strike an attacking creature with reach, you are:
- giving up a full attack routine
- giving up the ability to make attacks of opportunity if the opponent would otherwise provoke.
- possibly losing an action if the creature doesn't strike at you.
- rooted to the spot for your turn.
I understand that allowing an attack against the striking creature's appendage has the appearance of a called shot. However, called shots in earlier editions were vehicles for bypassing standard hit point rules. I attack his eyes to blind him! I attack his hands to make him drop his weapon! I kick him in the junk! This readied action maneuver is a single attack for standard damage, and had someone in my game tried to perform this stunt prior to the Strike Back feat, I would have allowed it without batting an eye.
It does open some interesting situations with the Critical feats. Obviously "common sense" dictates that you can't use Blinding Critical against the tail of an attacking dragon. But I suppose those issues exist with the Strike Back feat as currently written anyway.
Unless it's Darth Vader and it's using force choke on me, I'm attacking the creature, which is hitting me with an appendage, which by definition is within 5 feet of me since it's touching my body.
No. Creatures only exist in their space, by the rules. Regardless of whether they're attacking you using reach, the creature still only exists wherever its space says it exists in. You can cite "You can attack any creature within 5 feet of you" however much you want, but you're ignoring the context of the rules to do so. The rules do not support any interpretation other than "creatures only occupy the space described in their stat block".
Since there's no difference between parts of a creature (as we both agree), a creature's arm or tentacle is just as good as its torso.
Saywhat? No, I very emphatically do NOT agree with that. There is very much a difference between attacking only the very small part of the creature that is currently involved in causing you bodily pain vs attacking any part of the creature that is vulnerable. When you limit your options, you increase the difficulty. That's a basic element of common sense. The smaller your target area, the harder it is to hit accurately. When you have to simultaneously defend yourself and attack the exact part you're defending yourself against, the difficulty of the attack goes up. That is common sense.
What I have said is that, when you are following the actual rules and not the rules you make up to fit an abstract fantasy game into real-world common sense, the AC of a creature is abstract and is the same across the creature's entire body unless there is an explicit rule that says otherwise.
That is a FAR cry from saying that it's as easy to hit a tentacle as it is to hit a Havero.
However, if that is such an all-encompassing rule, why the heck is the rule buried in the existence of such a feat?
It isn't buried. Show me the rule that states you can attack a creature whose space is outside your reach.
From the PFSRD: 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 a character readying an action declares "I ready an attack action to attack the giant as it attacks me, I will use my 5 foot step to get within reach." THAT should allow the character to do it.