My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.
I like this solution.
My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.I like this solution.
I have no problem with this either, but this would be a house rule. There's nothing I know of in the RAW that would force the spring attacking PC to use the squeeze rules. It does seem reasonable though.
I would have the dwarf use the squeezing rules as well, and possibly cause himself and ally to drop prone if he fumbles the attack.
Otherwise I do not see a problem, though I do treat squares with allies as difficult terrain for movement purposes, unless a decent acrobatics check can be made to move their full movement in difficult terain.
I have no problem with this either, but this would be a house rule. There's nothing I know of in the RAW that would force the spring attacking PC to use the squeeze rules. It does seem reasonable though.My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.I like this solution.
To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.
To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.I have no problem with this either, but this would be a house rule. There's nothing I know of in the RAW that would force the spring attacking PC to use the squeeze rules. It does seem reasonable though.My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.I like this solution.
To me, as a player, i f you disallow the use of a feat I carefully chose which seems to be completely according to RAW as a DM fiat decision, I would not be happy.
To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.To me, as a player, i f you disallow the use of a feat I carefully chose which seems to be completely according to RAW as a DM fiat decision, I would not be happy.
I couldn't find any rules about a PC attacking while sharing a space with another PC of the same size other than (a) the squeezing rules or (b) the Tiny creature rules. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong book.
I couldn't find any rules about a PC attacking while sharing a space with another PC of the same size other than (a) the squeezing rules or (b) the Tiny creature rules. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong book.To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.To me, as a player, i f you disallow the use of a feat I carefully chose which seems to be completely according to RAW as a DM fiat decision, I would not be happy.
As I said, I believe using the squeezing rules is reasonable. The comment that you would only allow it with squeezing as "DM munificence" is what I was reacting to. I see nothing "munificent" about your position here, in fact I would describe this as a DM being unreasonably hidebound in the application of a fairly trivial battle situation where the feat, as written, clearly allows for the attack to occur. If I were at your table and tried to do this and you announced that your "munificence" was why you were going to allow my feat to work, but be constrained by squeeze rules, I'd be more than a little irritated by your attitude. Maybe if you described your position as being a reluctant DM decision forced by your reading of the squeeze rules, I might be somewhat less irritated.
To me, as a player, i f you disallow the use of a feat I carefully chose which seems to be completely according to RAW as a DM fiat decision, I would not be happy.To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.I have no problem with this either, but this would be a house rule. There's nothing I know of in the RAW that would force the spring attacking PC to use the squeeze rules. It does seem reasonable though.My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.I like this solution.
Most players will get over it, the feat isnt useless, it is just restricted in very specific circumstances. I cant remember last time I used 5 foot hallways like this anyway, so it will rarely if ever come up, but if it does come up it is challenging because of the lack of mobility.
It shouldnt be a GM's habbit of dumping players in 5'foot corridors, but the occasional situation shouldnt put your character much at a disadvantage, most characters are or shouldnt be one trick ponies anyway
Also fiat decisions go both ways and for enemies and players alike.
To me, as a player, i f you disallow the use of a feat I carefully chose which seems to be completely according to RAW as a DM fiat decision, I would not be happy.To me as a GM, the choice would be between applying the squeezing rules or disallowing it altogether, so I'd err on the side of munificence.I have no problem with this either, but this would be a house rule. There's nothing I know of in the RAW that would force the spring attacking PC to use the squeeze rules. It does seem reasonable though.My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.I like this solution.Most players will get over it, the feat isnt useless, it is just restricted in very specific circumstances. I cant remember last time I used 5 foot hallways like this anyway, so it will rarely if ever come up, but if it does come up it is challenging because of the lack of mobility.
It shouldnt be a GM's habbit of dumping players in 5'foot corridors, but the occasional situation shouldnt put your character much at a disadvantage, most characters are or shouldnt be one trick ponies anyway.
I agree that DMs should avoid putting players in situations like this unless there's a very good reason for it. However, I don't agree that this is a "one trick pony" situation. Players choose character concepts, and feats are perhaps the most important part of building a character concept. As a DM it is my personal belief that it is my job to give players as many opportunities to excel as possible, and specifically that means it is my job to give them opportunities to exercise their feats.
In my games it is a rare, rare situation where I would actively LOOK FOR A REASON for a feat not to work as described in the rules. Quite the contrary, if I'm going to have to fudge one way or the other, I'm going to fudge in the PCs favor when it involves using a feat. ESPECIALLY when the situation is not remotely game breaking and when the action being taken is dramatically compelling and potentially entertaining to the group.
"I use my spring attack to dart forward between the barbarians legs, chop at the orc's legs with my axe, and duck back to my original square!"
My response to that isn't "Hmm.... well... let's see what the squeeze rules say about that..." My response is going to be "Awesome move dude! Make your attack roll!"
In my games it is a rare, rare situation where I would actively LOOK FOR A REASON for a feat not to work as described in the rules. Quite the contrary, if I'm going to have to fudge one way or the other, I'm going to fudge in the PCs favor when it involves using a feat.
I think we're in agreement here. I'm not sure why the word "munificence" made you think otherwise, but I hereby strike it from the record! :-)
So, if you decide to take a full round move action (two move actions combined into one move) and you run past a door where a hidden NPC has a readied action to trip the next enemy who runs by, how is that any different from dealing with spring attack if spring attack is one continuous move?I've been leaning towards the Move, Stop, Attack, Move argument (which would not allow what the OP did), and this is one of the reasons I've been thinking that way.Just to add a monkey wrench to the entire debate....
Lets say the enemy is on a delay so he can interupt an action.
He interupts the spring attack with a SUCCESSFUL TRIP.
Where does the spring attacker fall down.
That was my point. I believe it's not one continuous move when you do spring attack. I believe it is move, stop, attack, move. That was what I posted, wasn't it?
That was my point. I believe it's not one continuous move when you do spring attack. I believe it is move, stop, attack, move. That was what I posted, wasn't it?So, if you decide to take a full round move action (two move actions combined into one move) and you run past a door where a hidden NPC has a readied action to trip the next enemy who runs by, how is that any different from dealing with spring attack if spring attack is one continuous move?I've been leaning towards the Move, Stop, Attack, Move argument (which would not allow what the OP did), and this is one of the reasons I've been thinking that way.Just to add a monkey wrench to the entire debate....
Lets say the enemy is on a delay so he can interupt an action.
He interupts the spring attack with a SUCCESSFUL TRIP.
Where does the spring attacker fall down.
You don't seem to be getting MY point. When you make a full round move action where you combine two move actions into one move, that is ONE CONTINUOUS MOVE, not a move, stop and move. If someone trips you halfway through your move, that is exactly the same situation as tripping someone using a spring attack action.
That's my point. It is the opposite of your point.
You don't seem to be getting MY point. When you make a full round move action where you combine two move actions into one move, that is ONE CONTINUOUS MOVE, not a move, stop and move. If someone trips you halfway through your move, that is exactly the same situation as tripping someone using a spring attack action.
That's my point. It is the opposite of your point.
Doesn't Spring Attack say "You can move both before and after the attack"? To me, that suggests that you are not moving during the actual attack, but YMMV.
My intuition is: Whatever conditions prevail in the square you're attacking from, you have to deal with during your attack. For instance, if it's pitch black in that square, you need a light source, or if there's some sort of unluck aura that reaches into that square, it would affect you. It doesn't matter if you're only there for a second; you're still in that square when you attack. Likewise, if it's crowded in that square, that would affect you as well.
You don't seem to be getting MY point. When you make a full round move action where you combine two move actions into one move, that is ONE CONTINUOUS MOVE, not a move, stop and move. If someone trips you halfway through your move, that is exactly the same situation as tripping someone using a spring attack action.
That's my point. It is the opposite of your point.
Doesn't Spring Attack say "You can move both before and after the attack"? It doesn't say anything in the RAW about attacking while moving, but YMMV.
My intuition is: Whatever conditions prevail in the square you're attacking from, you have to deal with during your attack. For instance, if it's pitch black in that square, you need a light source, or if there's some sort of unluck aura that reaches into that square, it would affect you. Likewise, if it's crowded in that square, that would affect you as well.
This appears to be the core of the disagreement about how spring attack works. "Move before and after the attack" does NOT imply to ME that you have to stop and attack and move again. It simply means that you can attack anywhere during the move and continue moving after the attack is done. The whole point of the feat has always seemed to me to be to allow you to make an "attack on the run" and to attack WHILE moving, which is WHY you don't grant an attack of opportunity for the attack.
Here is the full text of the feat from the Pathfinder Rule Book:
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw
before he can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack
bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your
speed and make a single melee attack without provoking
any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
You can move both before and after the attack, but you
must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total
distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed.
You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to
you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack."
The key RAW part of this is the following sentence: "As a full-round action, you can move up to your
speed and make a single melee attack without provoking
any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack"
Nowhere in that sentence, which describes the actual mechanics of the move, does it imply that you have to stop moving, attack and start moving again. It describes it as a "full round action" with a single "move up to your speed" with the benefit of "make a single melee attack."
I can see that the "move before and after" could cause some confusion, but I am certain the game designers intended the move to be a single move, not a move, stop, attack, move mechanic.
You don't seem to be getting MY point. When you make a full round move action where you combine two move actions into one move, that is ONE CONTINUOUS MOVE, not a move, stop and move. If someone trips you halfway through your move, that is exactly the same situation as tripping someone using a spring attack action.That's my point. It is the opposite of your point.
Two things here:
Firstly, taking a move action and then using your standard action as a second move action is not a full round move action. Mechanically it is two seperate actions, and thus two seperate moves.
Secondly, disregarding the above, the situation you mention could occur during a normal move action. And the rules specifies that you are shunted back to your previous location or the closest unoccupied square, if you are forced to end your movement in an occupied square.
That fact that this is possible in other circumstances does not invalidate the argument, however. Whether you risk such situations that doesn't makes much sense or not, is relevant for making the call on allowing the stunt or not. And by not making much sense, I refer to the fact that in the OP example, the dwarf would be mysteriously transported two squares through the enemy.
Whether a problem can arise elsewhere, does not mean you have to actively search for it.
|
Firstly, taking a move action and then using your standard action as a second move action is not a full round move action. Mechanically it is two seperate actions, and thus two seperate moves.
So, a monk cannot jump at 2x speed? They must make a jump as a move action, land, and then make another jump to cover the rest of the distance?
you may be taking 2 move actions, but you are considered as moving the whole time. You do not actually have to stop in the middle.
You don't seem to be getting MY point. When you make a full round move action where you combine two move actions into one move, that is ONE CONTINUOUS MOVE, not a move, stop and move. If someone trips you halfway through your move, that is exactly the same situation as tripping someone using a spring attack action.That's my point. It is the opposite of your point.
Two things here:
Firstly, taking a move action and then using your standard action as a second move action is not a full round move action. Mechanically it is two seperate actions, and thus two seperate moves.
Secondly, disregarding the above, the situation you mention could occur during a normal move action. And the rules specifies that you are shunted back to your previous location or the closest unoccupied square, if you are forced to end your movement in an occupied square.
That fact that this is possible in other circumstances does not invalidate the argument, however. Whether you risk such situations that doesn't makes much sense or not, is relevant for making the call on allowing the stunt or not. And by not making much sense, I refer to the fact that in the OP example, the dwarf would be mysteriously transported two squares through the enemy.
Whether a problem can arise elsewhere, does not mean you have to actively search for it.
Hmm... you know, I searched through the rulebook and I think you are right, there's nothing I found in PF that says a double move is a single movement. That was in 3.5 I am certain, because it comes into play when you are moving through difficult terrain. If you take two separate move actions through difficult terrain and can only move five squares, then with two separate move actions you could only move four squares total (two for each move action). But if the two moves are combined into one move, then you could move five squares (1/2 of 10 squares). I know that in 3.5 a double move was ruled that way, and I think the general rule in Pathfinder is that the old 3.5 rule is in play unless it was specifically superceded by a PF rule, so I will continue to rule that way on double moves.
But you are right that the PF rule book does not seem to have this rule in it. A shame, because it clearly SHOULD have it.
Firstly, taking a move action and then using your standard action as a second move action is not a full round move action. Mechanically it is two seperate actions, and thus two seperate moves.
So, a monk cannot jump at 2x speed? They must make a jump as a move action, land, and then make another jump to cover the rest of the distance?
you may be taking 2 move actions, but you are considered as moving the whole time. You do not actually have to stop in the middle.
I am speaking from a mechanical point of view, and as such there exist a distinction. It is a matter of how the game is constructed, which is relevant in a RAW focused discussion as this. It is not my recommendation for how you should resolve any situation in the game. Far from it, actually, in many situations (such as the one Brassbaboon mentions about double moves and difficult terrain) I think you should disregard the constructions of the game, to enable the actions that seems intuitively right.
Regarding jumping, it is a special situation. Making a jump is limited by your total movement for the round, not your movement score. As such, the double movement does not disallow jumping the whole distance.
As such you might even take a run action to jump 4 times your movement.
@brassbaboon
HaraldKlak did a much better job of putting it forward. Basically, just because a rule exists for what happens when you interrupt a movement (no matter what that movement may be, two normal moves, a run, a five foot step) does not mean that the feat does what you suggest. That's basically the Wookie defense, here, look over here at the Wookie, he's a Wookie, you have to be able to do this. :)
The feat itself is very clear in it's wording, and it's wording is very different from the other similar ability of fly-by-attack (and shot on the run). Both of those other feats specify you're making an attack at any point during your movement.
Spring attack, on the other hand, specifically calls out that you move before, and then after, the attack. If it was the intention that you would attack at any point during your movement (and thus attack while moving) it would have just used the same terminology as Shot on the Run. It doesn't though, it says you move, attack, move. It breaks it up into 3 distinct actions, movement, attack, and movement.
|
|
@brassbaboon
HaraldKlak did a much better job of putting it forward. Basically, just because a rule exists for what happens when you interrupt a movement (no matter what that movement may be, two normal moves, a run, a five foot step) does not mean that the feat does what you suggest. That's basically the Wookie defense, here, look over here at the Wookie, he's a Wookie, you have to be able to do this. :)
The feat itself is very clear in it's wording, and it's wording is very different from the other similar ability of fly-by-attack (and shot on the run). Both of those other feats specify you're making an attack at any point during your movement.
Spring attack, on the other hand, specifically calls out that you move before, and then after, the attack. If it was the intention that you would attack at any point during your movement (and thus attack while moving) it would have just used the same terminology as Shot on the Run. It doesn't though, it says you move, attack, move. It breaks it up into 3 distinct actions, movement, attack, and movement.
Nothing in spring attack forces you to move after you attack, it just states that you can if you want to. (In this way, Spring attack is great for moving up to a monster with reach without provoking AoO's.)
When you break it down:
Benefit:
1) As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. This is a single, full-round action with a move and attack. Not a move action, attack action, move action.
2) You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. So, you can start your move, attack and then finish your move. This is because you are still only making 1 fill round action that lets you move up to your speed.
3) You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn. to keep you from smacking someone you are already in melee with, then retreating out of range.
Mdt: If and when we get a ruling on this from the game designers, I'll either admit my error or point out my accurate reading of the RAW.
I trust you and the others here will do the same.
Developer
|
Mdt: If and when we get a ruling on this from the game designers, I'll either admit my error or point out my accurate reading of the RAW.
I trust you and the others here will do the same.
Sure will. I can admit when I'm wrong, and conceptually I agree with you. You are correct in that one idea of what the feat does allows that.
The before and after wording just won't let me call that RAW though, especially since draw while moving and flyby are worded to allow your concept while this is not. Were they all the same I'd probably be arguing on your side.
Mdt: If and when we get a ruling on this from the game designers, I'll either admit my error or point out my accurate reading of the RAW.
I trust you and the others here will do the same.
Sure will. I can admit when I'm wrong, and conceptually I agree with you. You are correct in that one idea of what the feat does allows that.
The before and after wording just won't let me call that RAW though, especially since draw while moving and flyby are worded to allow your concept while this is not. Were they all the same I'd probably be arguing on your side.
I think the context of the first sentence is clear and is the key. The first sentence clearly describes the moving as a single action with an attack that occurs during the move. It is my opinion that the wording you are referring to is wording that was added in an attempt to clarify the mechanics so that the player knew the move could be continuous before and after the attack. And in wording it that way, they introduced unnecessary confusion. The whole point of the feat is to allow the character to attack as part of a single move.
I am pretty much 99.9% certain that is exactly what happened.
|
Developer
|
I think the context of the first sentence is clear and is the key. The first sentence clearly describes the moving as a single action with an attack that occurs during the move. It is my opinion that the wording you are referring to is wording that was added in an attempt to clarify the mechanics so that the player knew the move was continuous before and after the attack. And in wording it that way, they introduced unnecessary confusion.I am pretty much 99.9% certain that is exactly what happened.
Whereas I see the first sentence as description and the part I reference as the actual mechanics. True, it's unclear, and either of us could be right.
The deciding factor for me was the difference in wording from actions that leave no doubt they occur during a single move. That breaks the tie between interpretations, as they could have just gone with what they used on the other actions, but did not.
So... you're not wrong, I just feel I'm more right. Which is an odd way to frame a debate, but without clarification we're left with two potentially correct readings. I just can't see a tiebreaker for yours as I can for mine.
I think the context of the first sentence is clear and is the key. The first sentence clearly describes the moving as a single action with an attack that occurs during the move. It is my opinion that the wording you are referring to is wording that was added in an attempt to clarify the mechanics so that the player knew the move was continuous before and after the attack. And in wording it that way, they introduced unnecessary confusion.I am pretty much 99.9% certain that is exactly what happened.
Whereas I see the first sentence as description and the part I reference as the actual mechanics. True, it's unclear, and either of us could be right.
The deciding factor for me was the difference in wording from actions that leave no doubt they occur during a single move. That breaks the tie between interpretations, as they could have just gone with what they used on the other actions, but did not.
So... you're not wrong, I just feel I'm more right. Which is an odd way to frame a debate, but without clarification we're left with two potentially correct readings. I just can't see a tiebreaker for yours as I can for mine.
And I think the tiebreaker is the fact that the mechanics starts with the sentence I quoted. The sentence is directly following the keyword "Benefits" which makes it clearly the main part of the mechanics of the feat. Virtually all feats are worded with the Benefits clearly identified as mechanics after a bit of flavor text before the Benefits keyword.
There are tons of areas in the RAW where virtually identical situations have slightly different wording because it's virtually impossible for a large team of writers to coordinate every single word to ensure there are no inconsistencies introduced. Heck, I could point out several situations like that in the friggin BIBLE. Much less a game rule book.
I wish someone from Paizo would weigh in on this. How do we get this into the FAQ?
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I wish someone from Paizo would weigh in on this. How do we get this into the FAQ?
Not sure. Usually everyone's favorite dinosaur would have weighed in by now. Maybe it's the fact only 10 people have clicked the FAQ button on the initial post. Though sometimes he'll show up for less.
We've definitely reached an impasse. Both of our interpretations fit the text, and neither will be convinced by the other.
I wish someone from Paizo would weigh in on this. How do we get this into the FAQ?Not sure. Usually everyone's favorite dinosaur would have weighed in by now. Maybe it's the fact only 10 people have clicked the FAQ button on the initial post. Though sometimes he'll show up for less.
We've definitely reached an impasse. Both of our interpretations fit the text, and neither will be convinced by the other.
LOL, they probably just don't think this is important enough to respond to. After all, how many times is spring attack going to become an issue in a crowded five foot wide hallway?
I suppose I could come up with some other situations where it might matter if I really tried. The core issue is whether the mechanic is "attack while moving" or "move, stop, attack, move again." That seems easy enough to answer.
Just to add a monkey wrench to the entire debate....
Lets say the enemy is on a delay so he can interupt an action.
He interupts the spring attack with a SUCCESSFUL TRIP.
Where does the spring attacker fall down.
Delay =/= Ready. I think you mean ready a trip action. There are clear provisions for accidents such as the one you propose in the Core rules.
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space
Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.
Firstly, taking a move action and then using your standard action as a second move action is not a full round move action. Mechanically it is two seperate actions, and thus two seperate moves.
This is correct. A double move is two individual move actions (Move + Standard ---> Move). "You can take a move action in place of a standard action."
This is not the equivalent of a Full Round Action which continues until you decide it is over or the critera is met. This is my main point that the movement is not to have considered ended until the action is finished.
Whereas I see the first sentence as description and the part I reference as the actual mechanics. True, it's unclear, and either of us could be right.
As far as reading the rule RAW, everything after Benefit: is a game mechanic and it describes how this feat changes the rules from their normal context.
The descriptive fluff is directly under the title of the feat and listed before the "benefit". For Spring Attack the fluff is: You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.
All three sentences of Spring Attack (after Benefit) carry weight.
Finally, not sure how I feel about squeezing. The space is not narrow, it is a 5x5 square and a character can move through allies without any penalty. It's not like there is a rock obstacle in the middle of the space. I see no reason to penalize them for intiating a Spring Attack which they have spent 3 feats to acquire.
After reading the forums posts thus far the DM is going to rule for the future all attacks occuring in a space occupied by an ally with count as "squeezing" for the purpose of attack bonus and AC but not for movement.
To make my life easier, I think I will take a feat from Seekers of Secrets.
Friendly Switch
You elbow an ally out of the way, and take his place on the battlefield.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1.
Benefit: As part of your movement or as a 5-foot-step, you can move into the space occupied by an ally of your size or smaller, which displaces the ally into the space you just left. Your ally must be willing and able to move and able to occupy the space you were in. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. This does not count toward your ally’s movement on his next turn.
Now my dwarf is just going to bully his way through the battlefield, shoving allies aside and throwing healers behind him.
(Although, I am still very curious for an official ruling)
That feat would work as would the Teamwork Feat: Swap Places, but it requires your allies to also have it.
Choice between the two and I would take Friendly Switch every time. Swap Places is only good for those with class features that allow them to change and choose teamwork feats.
But yeah, seems like a good option and it will allow me to rush to the casters side, push them behind me and take down the bad guy.
Yeah, it`s kind of funny that both are legal for PFS, but the non-Teamwork Friendly Switch is basically better in every way.
(even if all your allies take it, the non-Teamwork version also applies to Summons and Companions, etc)
I can`t imagine anybody with access to Seekers of Secrets choosing Swap Places, unless they are an Inquisitor or Cavalier.
Just to add a monkey wrench to the entire debate....
Lets say the enemy is on a delay so he can interrupt an action.
He interrupts the spring attack with a SUCCESSFUL TRIP.
Where does the spring attacker fall down.
The character winds up in a random unoccupied space. Why random? Because if there is more then one available square, its randomly determined which one is closest. Its a cute little tidbit also useful for monkey wrenching charge plans.
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>
Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>
Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die
Just to add a monkey wrench to the entire debate....
Lets say the enemy is on a delay so he can interrupt an action.
He interrupts the spring attack with a SUCCESSFUL TRIP.
Where does the spring attacker fall down.
The character winds up in a random unoccupied space. Why random? Because if there is more then one available square, its randomly determined which one is closest. Its a cute little tidbit also useful for monkey wrenching charge plans.
[i]Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.
So, in the original case if my dwarf moved in through the hallway to the bad guy, and the bad guy had a trip readied then the closest legal space would be behind the bad guy. Effectively the guy waited for me, grabs me and throws me over his shoulder to the ground. Nice.
This is correct, in your case it would be the square behind the bad guy
|
MY two cents, if anyone is interested, is that in no way can this be done. The feat makes it pretty clear that you move, attack and then can move again. That means you have to stop. It also make sense realistically. In no way is the movement all one move. In fact, there is a feat that does work like that called flyby attack and if you read it, you will see see that the wording is different.
Now, in the case of moving twice and having it be one move (Like a long jump) the rules do allow for that. The difference though is that the jumper is not stopping mid jump to do something beside jumping, so it is completely different.
I also would not allow squeezing. I can see why some people would, but I think that move-attack-move is difficult enough, which is why it requires a feat. I think that having a person in the place where you intended to set, attack, and set off again, should break that action.
Last if my player were to hear my decision and get annoyed, I would send him to the big boy chair to calm down. Once he grows up, he could join the adults again.
MY two cents, if anyone is interested, is that in no way can this be done.
Have you disregarded all the counterpoints listed in this thread by Quandry, Myself and others?
Your reference to flyby attack seems to suggest you did not.
|
|
MY two cents, if anyone is interested, is that in no way can this be done.Have you disregarded all the counterpoints listed in this thread by Quandry, Myself and others?
Your reference to flyby attack seems to suggest you did not.
Disregard may be a bit strong. I read them and disagree. Not that I disagreed with the posters you mentioned only. I disagreed with all who said it could be done.
Disregard may be a bit strong. I read them and disagree. Not that I disagreed with the posters you mentioned only. I disagreed with all who said it could be done.MY two cents, if anyone is interested, is that in no way can this be done.Have you disregarded all the counterpoints listed in this thread by Quandry, Myself and others?
Your reference to flyby attack seems to suggest you did not.
This is why many of us are waiting for an official ruling. The rules strongly point to one side, but do not state it, thus the haze. Fly-by attack has to state it as one move with an attack as part of it because creatures incapable of hovering need to keep moving or they crash.
|
Fly-by attack has to state it as one move with an attack as part of it because creatures incapable of hovering need to keep moving or they crash.
A very good point. Flying creatures have to move minimum distances or suffer problems, so the difference in wording of Flyby Attack makes the feat more viable for them.
*SHRUG*
I would definitely let it fly, he's invested a lot in getting that feat. My suggestion is have him take the penalties for squeezing while he's attacking though since he can't really maneuver fully.
I would lean towards this being illegal, but this is a good compromise imo.
FAQ!
Looks like Brass won. Congrats Brass.
Sean? What would happen if the person using spring attack in the hallway with his friends was tripped? Does he magically teleport back to where he started, since he can't occupy the space he's attacking from if tripped?
Example : Spring attack forward into ally square, and then attempt to trip the bad guy. Fail the attempt and provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The enemy trips in return, and succeeds, and I am now tripped and prone before I can continue my movement to get out of the occupied space.
You go to the nearest valid square, whether that`s where you started from or not.
Just the basic rule for ending your movement in an illegal square, or whatever you want to call it.
Re: penalties there aren`t NECESSARILY any, though there is plenty of room for the GM to say there is intervening soft cover - though nothing technically prevents you from saying you are on the enemy`s side of the intervening ally (not subject to cover). The same issue comes up when other shared-square creatures like Familiars or Tiny monsters, etc... The rules just don`t enforce any strict arrangement below 5` squares, though cover, etc, can still apply as GM rules it, as it cares about Line of Sight/Effect, etc. Incidentally, if it did apply, it would have blocked the AoO in MDT´s example
|
What would happen if the person using spring attack in the hallway with his friends was tripped? Does he magically teleport back to where he started, since he can't occupy the space he's attacking from if tripped?
I'm AFB and the PDF is a pain from iPhone, so my apology for lack of citations. If a character involuntarily ends movement in a square that he cannot occupy, he us repositioned to a valid location; which location that is is identified in the rules. I can see some debate about when it happens (before or after attack), although that might be clear in the rule. While it may offend some sensibilities, this shunting type rule is a nod to the necessities of game mechanics and isn't limited to spring attacking. There us no "magical teleport. " It is merely a necessity of what us needed to preserve the foundational mechanics, namely the lack if square sharing as a general rule.