Just looking for some clarification on the flanking rules, concerning what constitutes threatening a square.
If a defender is surrounded on opposite sides by attackers, but attacker No. 2 is fighting a different target that round, is he still threatening the defender if his actions and attention are elsewhere? Just seems to me a staggered peasant armed with a butter knife +1 could stand behind the defender and still provide the flanking bonus to another attacker opposite him even if the peasant spends the round buttering a slice of bread instead of paying any attention to the defender at all.
And I also thought of the teamwork feats, seems to me both individuals would have to be actively engaged against the defender (using teamwork!) to get that bonus.
So yeah please offer advice on this one, I get that the rules read that you threaten every square around you, just doesn't clearly stipulate that to threaten something you have to be doing something to that target or not. Erg, confused!
No, you don't have to be 'actively attacking' a creature to be threatening it.
In fact, that is a reversal of the meaning of the terms! You have to be threatening it first in order to actively attack it!
Threatening means that you are capable of making a melee attack against the target. Whether you do or you don't doesn't matter. The target still has to account for the threat, and this means he is having to deal with issues on both sides of him which makes it harder for him to defend himself against either threat. And thats where the flanking bonuses come in.
Theres a proverb in chess lore: "the threat is stronger than the execution." Meaning that the power of simply presenting the threat causes the opponent to have to respond to it, often to the detriment of his own plans.
This has made the rounds on these forums before, a hotbed of Pathfinder intrigue to be sure. Feel free to search for it.
I note that you asked more than one question there. Here's the gist of what's been said before:
If a defender is surrounded on opposite sides by attackers, but attacker No. 2 is fighting a different target that round, is he still threatening the defender if his actions and attention are elsewhere?
There is no "facing" in combat. So if I am fighting an orc who is "facing" me, and you (my ally) are behind that orc in a flanking position, but you are fighting a different orc behind you, which causes you to be "facing" away from my orc (you and my orc might be back-to-back, "facing" away from each other) - in this case both you and my orc are flanked.
This is because there is no "facing". During a six-second melee round, it is assumed that all 4 of us are spinning, whirling, ducking, dodging, and looking all around for additional dangers. Sure, our D&D Mini's are standing still on the battlemat, but our characters are highly mobile, looking all around as much as possible.
Based on this, the answer to your first question is Yes, he is still threatening the defender, assuming he is threatening anything at all (see below).
Just seems to me a staggered peasant armed with a butter knife +1 could stand behind the defender and still provide the flanking bonus to another attacker opposite him even if the peasant spends the round buttering a slice of bread instead of paying any attention to the defender at all.
1. The Staggered condition doesn't prevent attacking or flanking.
2. Peasants are capable of flanking, assuming they meet the other requirements (armed and in the right position).So since those aspects of your question are irrelevent, I'll focus on the weapon of choice and the actions being performed.
3. Humanoids (including typical peasants) do not threaten a space if you are unarmed (unless you have Improved Unarmed Combat or a readied Touch spell). Note that a lizardman peasant has natural attacks so he could threaten a space.
Also note that the definition of flanking says "if your opponent is threatened by another enemy" but it never defines what "threatned" means. However, the rules for flanking say "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" which seems to be a good definition of "threaten". It's a bit of a leap of faith to assume that the rules for threatening an enemy are the same as the rules for threatening a space, but only just a bit - seems like sound logic to me.
In your example, the peasant is only "armed" with a non-weapon. Doesn't matter whether it's a butterknife or a feather or a crayon or his empty hand; if it's not a weapon, he is not "armed". And we use our faith in the Flanking rules once again: "If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten..."
Based on that, his lack of a credible weapon means he does not threaten the defender, therefore he does not grant flanking. (But see further below)
4. Modifying your example, let's say the peasant is buttering his bread with a dagger instead of a butterknife. Now he's "armed" and can threaten. During combat, we make all kinds of actions. We might even spend a round casting a spell, or picking a lock, or stand from prone and drinking a potion. None of this matters. If we have a weapon in our hand (or are otherwise "armed") then we are dangerous. If we are dangerous, we threaten the spaces and enemies around us. And if we do that, they must take us seriously.
Look at it this way - he could stop buttering the bread and plunge that dagger into the defender's kindey in an instant, and the defender knows it, so he must keep an eye on our buttery peasant at all times. That's very distracting, which means that he cannot adequately defend himself from either attacker.
So, if the peasant is spreading butter with a dagger, he does threaten the defender and grants flanking.
And I also thought of the teamwork feats, seems to me both individuals would have to be actively engaged against the defender (using teamwork!) to get that bonus.
This may not have been discuessed much, since these are relatively new. I am unaware of any discussion on this.
My take is that the same general concept applies here. If you and your ally have the prerequisites (usually this means you both have the feat and you're adjacent to each other), then the fact that there is no "facing" means you're both aware of all your enemies and both able to react to the battlefield conditions, so your Teamwork feats are automatically engaged when applicable and when you want to use them.
Of course, some Teamwork feats may have other restrictions that make this ruling less applicable; if so it should say as mch in their descriptions. Otherwise, I would rule it like I just did.
I get that the rules read that you threaten every square around you, just doesn't clearly stipulate that to threaten something you have to be doing something to that target or not. Erg, confused!
I understand the confusion. Hopefully this clears it up a bit.
Now for the rough stuff.
Many people on these forums have stipulated that some of what I said above is untrue (the stuff above is how I see it and apply it in my games).
Some have said that your ally doesn't have to be able to threaten your enemy at all. The mere fact that some empty-handed peasant is standing there is threat enough for flanking. For all your enemy knows, that guy might be a sorcerer, or a rogue who will quickdraw a hidden dagger and sneak attack him. Just being in a flanking position is sufficient distraction to grant Flanking.
Further, that peasant could kick you, or try to trip you, or just tackle you from behind like he tackles his pigs on his peasant pig farm. All of those kinds of actions could get you a little off balance, just enough that it grants you Flanking bonus.
Some have also suggested ignoring a harmless foe. Suppose you and I are enemies, and I have a harmless, unarmed peasant behind you, granting me flanking. Suppose, further, that you have known this man your whole life and you know he is harmless, has no training in anything remotely dangerous, and is a pacifist who abhors violence and will never harm a hair on your head.
In that case you could just choose to ignore him. If you do not pay any attention to him, keeping your entire focus on me, then I should not be granted Flanking. At least, this is what some people have said. It would be a houserule since the Core Rulebook makes no rule for this. If you want just Core Rulebook answers, then you cannot ignore that peasant, even if you want to. As long as he is your "enemy" you must attend to him, and therefore he grants flanking.
If you do houserule this, then it raises some interesting questions. Like, what happens if that peasant decides to attack you? You are not even looking at him - effectively, he's invisible to you by your own choice to ignore him. Further, you're not defending against him, so you shouldn't get any DEX or Dodge bonus against his attack. Even further, you might be considered helpless - making no move at all to defend yourself, that peasant might be able to Coup de Grace you.
Another interesting question would then be whether or not you could ignore an actual threat. Suppose you are a 10th level fighter and I am a 15th level rogue with a deadly Sneak Attack, and my ally is a normal, boring orc granting me Flanking. If you are flanked, I can Sneak Attack you for tons of damage. If you ignore the orc (using the houserule) then I can barely hurt you. You know the orc isn't going to kill you, so you should just ignore him - even if he hits you (unlikely), it's only going to be a few HP, far far less than just one of my deadly Sneak Attacks.
All interesting questions, revolving around a very tenuous houserule.
Me, I say, play it as written.
Stuff
Fair enough, just the fact he could be about to attack means the defender has to keep an eye on him, thus providing the bonus.
I think you took my 'half dazed peasant' example a bit too literally tho ;) Was just using it as an example of a low-threat npc. But I agree with your position and shall play it as written. Thanks for the advice :)
I think you took my 'half dazed peasant' example a bit too literally tho ;) Was just using it as an example of a low-threat npc. But I agree with your position and shall play it as written. Thanks for the advice :)
Hmmm, I thought I was pretty lighthearted about it. I guess it's one of those things where the playful attitude doesn't translate in the text. I should have smilied it :)
In any case, I didn't think you were too serious about it, but I also figured I better clear them out anyway, just in case anyone asked.
Smileys make a world of difference :D
The more I think about it the more this makes sense too, thanks again.