| 19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Added to the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here was the situation in last nights game:
5ft wide hallway, o's are empty spaces, X's the party, D is my dwarf and B is the bad guy.
.
---------------------
o o o X D X X B o o
---------------------
So as you can see my dwarf was 15 feet away from the enemy, with two companions occupying the space between us. My dwarf has a movement speed of 30 (boots). For my action I moved forward through friendly occupied squares, struck the bad guy (with vital strike, but that doesn't really mean anything in this case) and moved back to my previous space ending my movement.
Noone disputed this, it was accepted but it got the back of my mind ticking away and I wanted to confirm if this is a legal action, or if we are going to house rule it.
Visually / Fluff ways the rest of the party are towering humans, so I could see a dwarf shouldering past their hips, striking and retreating back.
Comments?
(post edited to enhance visual aid)
Noone disputed this, it was accepted but it got the back of my mind ticking away and I wanted to confirm if this is a legal action, or if we are going to house rule it.Visually / Fluff ways the rest of the party are towering humans, so I could see a dwarf shouldering past their hips, striking and retreating back.
Comments?
At first I would say that your spider sense was correct, but it is a bit of a corner case.
It seems to be illegal due to the fact that "you cannot end your movement in an occupied square". But at this point semantics will rule the discussion, as it might be argued that you haven't ended you movement when using spring attack.
However, I tend to go with illegal, as spring attack specifies moving before and after the attack. If it is allowed you can get some cornercases, which creates impossible situations.
An example: if you made a trip attempt on your Spring Attack, and lost badly so you got knocked prone yourself. In that case, you would be prone in your ally's square, which are not allowed. And the rules would have you shunted 2 squares to the other side of the enemy.
I don't think we ought to start making rulings based on whether somebody has invested a lot to get to a feat. There are many feat trees available, and many roads a player can take, but the cost of each feat is included in the time it took to get it. If we then allowed any crazy interpretation based on that effort, we would quickly have a lot of weird stuff going on.
This was obviously an honest mistake and nobody thinks the outcome should not stand, since everyone at the table seemed okay with it. But I would go back and let everyone know. A day older, a day wiser. Not a big deal.
As to the rule itself, I am firmly in the camp that, as the feat states, you must complete a move before and after the attack. Since you cannot finish either move in an occupied square, this should not happen the same way next time.
In my earlier post I only commented on how I saw the rules.
Eventhough it might not be legal, I think you should go ahead an houserule it all you like (and can agree on in the group). It is not going to break the game in any way that you are able to pull that particular stunt.
|
I don't think we ought to start making rulings based on whether somebody has invested a lot to get to a feat.
I think when a ruling is in doubt it's as valid a way to break the tie as any other way.
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.
It is a single full round action, he doesn't even end his movement, he makes an attack while he is moving.
+1 to 0gre.
You are not ending your movement when making the attack of Spring Attack, you are doing it IN THE MIDDLE of your movement, so per RAW I see ZERO problem with doing this... Essentially, in terms of whether it´s allowed or not, this is no different than somebody drawing a weapon half-way thru their Move Action movement.
Obviously (or not) you guys allowing Vital Strike to work with Spring Attack is against the (Errata´d) RAW, but that´s a house-rule that I always use because it just feels right and that´s how I WISH the Errata had gone (namely, allowing a free Attack Action in the middle of a Full Round Spring Attack movement action).
I think it also matters how narrow the passage-way is for the squeezing issue...
It should be noted that moving thru allies´ squares isn´t called out as normally counting as squeezing on it´s own.
So if it was an open field and you moved thru an allies´ square, I wouldn´t count you as squeezing,
but depending on the hall-way width (which may vary even while being boiled down to a single square on a grid)
you should or shouldn´t count as squeezing... IMHO (that´s somewhat beyond the RAW, but that´s my 2c).
The thing about squeezing is that it also counts as double distance for movement purposes (I don´t think one should invoke squeezing for one aspect but not others, you either are or you aren´t). Double distance would make the total distance travelled 40 (I don´t know why you´re counting 15´ distance, you only need to move 2 squares) ...Although I suppose the rules for ´accidentally ending up in an occupied square´ would ´force´ you to the nearest legal square, i.e. where you started from, allowing a Spring Attack even if Squeezing + Doubled Distance was ruled to apply.
@Stubs: See my post.
Attack Action / Cleave during Spring Attack is a NO-NO per RAW, but if they want to house-rule that, that´s their game... And clearly doesn´t reall affect what the OP is asking about.
This is definitely a pretty big grey area...I would really like to see an official Paizo rep weigh in on this. My gut says it's a no...but as a dm I think I would house rule it in, it's a pretty cool niche benefit to a end cap of a feat chain.
I'm with Stubs on the "not being able to attack from an occupied square". But maybe that's just a rule from 4th that I'm carrying over... not sure.
Either way I think its a solid rule.
|
The phrase "move before and after" implies that while only one action is being used, movement is being separated into two sections. The before the attack section, and the after the attack section. This further implies that, since the movement is *interrupted* by an attack, each section of movement will have its own beginning and ending. By possessing an ending, movement is ending in a square.
note that the section does not say "ending a move action in an illegal square". What it does say is "You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
Since it isn't explicitly ending your action, anything that interrupted your movement could cause you to have an end to a discrete move which would potentially position you in an illegal square.
Sensible? Not really, but the rules do appear to allow for the interpretation.
OTOH, you can't use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Vital-Strike-8-20-10-
-Kle.
This is true due to the errata to spring attack.
|
You can't charge through friendly squares nor should you be allowed to spring attack through them either. If you do not like the above rule, the others have stated another rule, you can not end your movement for part of the spring attack in an occupied square. :)
There is no gray area here to be honest, this is part of the rules, like it or not. You can as GM determine your own interpretation of it as you see fit but the rules are as is and if your DM allows it then so be it.
Alright, we have confirmed that the vital strike was not permitted (an errata we missed), but the primary focus is the working of spring attack. Hallway was 5ft wide, so no squeezing rules in play.
I too would be interested in seeing the official ruling on this, but I am enjoying seeing the division and different takes on it.
Developer
|
First off, I'd say it's two movements, and you cannot end a movement in an illegal square. This does not refer to ending a movement from a move action, just ending a movement. Spring attack is a full round action, and it says it allows you to move before and after the attack. 2 movements.
Otherwise you'd be attacking while occupying the same square as another creature, something that isn't allowed. You cannot end your movement in such a square because you're no allowed to do anything else in such a square.
If you want to house rule this, then I'd add an addition onto the squeezing rules, as you and your ally don't have the room to maneuver that your'e used to. Attacking from a square occupied by another, non-helpless creature requires you to be squeezing. You're forced into an area that's less space than you require... the 5ft area already occupied. The squeezing rules don't mention this precisely because they never needed to. You're not supposed to be able to attack from another's square. If you do, it shouldn't be easy.
|
|
You can't charge through friendly squares nor should you be allowed to spring attack through them either.
Yes... you absolutely can spring attack through friendly squares, there is no question about that. Charge is a special action that explicitly says you cannot charge through occupied spaces, spring attack has no similar restrictions so is bound by normal movement restrictions.
If you do not like the above rule, the others have stated another rule, you can not end your movement for part of the spring attack in an occupied square. :)
It's not a matter of 'liking' the above, you are just wrong.
As for the argument that it's two movements, that is exactly what it is, an argument. The feat states it's a single action but doesn't really talk about whether you ever 'end' your movement. I can see it argued either way but there is nothing that implicitly requires it be run one way or the other.
The question seems to be: is spring attack a single action in which you never end your move (and can attack while in an occupied square)?
Personally, I'd say no.
The reason being... I wouldn't want to afford the bad guys thie same kind of luxury. I'm all for it as a tool for the party, but if there is a wall of bad guys, I don't want them also to employ spring attackers that shift up through the ranks and strike (in an occupied square, negating acrobatics and cover rules) then retreat back. I think that's asking for trouble.
Rules I could dig up:
FriendSpoiler:
You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
OpponentSpoiler:
You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
Ending Your MovementSpoiler:
You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
TumblingSpoiler:
A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).
In conclusion, it might be better to spring attack through the bad guy to the other side (negating AoOs, but still requiring a successful acrobatics check) and then flanking him with the attack gained by using spring attack.
There`s no rule that you can`t attack from an occupied square.
If there was, I`d be surprised why nobody has referenced it yet.
Rules that don`t exist aren`t rules, and neither are opinions of how things `should` work.
I too have opinions on how the rules `should` work (i.e. house-rules),
and even on where *I* *believe* the RAI are contrary to the RAW,
but I somehow find it possible to express these concepts without falsely claiming facts. Really.
Counting that attacking from an occupied square would take `squeezing` penalties is itself stretching it (from a RAW perspective), because while this Spring Attack situation itself may not have been envisioned when writing the Core Rules... The RAW clearly DOES discuss moving thru allies` squares, and `squeezing` is nowhere mentioned in conjunction with that, even though it would be highly relevant for just simple movement given it doubles the movement cost.
As I said before, applying one part of `squeezing` but not the other just doesn`t fit with how the game works. I think it`s reasonable to say `squeezing` applies when entering a square occupied by an ally that has walls (or other characters) in all adjacent squres - Though that is explicitly a house-rule.
If anybody wants to have a house-rule that you can`t attack while sharing the same square (I presume they exclude Tiny sized creatures), more power to you, but beyond your home games that doesn`t really have any standing or persuasiveness - If somebody says `i don`t like that` or `i have a different opinion`, there is really no basis to defend the validity of your rule in contexts outside your home-games. In PFS games, it would seem this tactic is COMPLETELY legit, and even the application of `squeezing` is a questionable elaboration of the RAW.
In any case, from a real-world believability / visualizability, clearly two humans don`t occupy all of a 5`x5` space, and can easily stand in the square while simultaneously attacking nearby enemies.
If anybody wants to have a house-rule that you can`t attack while sharing the same square (I presume they exclude Tiny sized creatures)
This is an excellent point.. Tiny creatures do factor into this discussion. A tiny creature has to enter your square to attack you and can attack in an occupied square. As long as it ends its turn in a legal space everything shakes out fine.
Thus, I must retract my previous "no" and change it to a slightly befuddled "yes" :)
|
|
If anybody wants to have a house-rule that you can`t attack while sharing the same square (I presume they exclude Tiny sized creatures), more power to you, but beyond your home games that doesn`t really have any standing or persuasiveness - If somebody says `i don`t like that` or `i have a different opinion`, there is really no basis to defend the validity of your rule in contexts outside your home-games. In PFS games, it would seem this tactic is COMPLETELY legit, and even the application of `squeezing` is a questionable elaboration of the RAW.
I'm also curious how you handle mounts if you can't attack from the same space as an ally.
!!!! :-)
Board seems pretty split, which is what I thought it would be. No rules that I could find either to prevent my action (disbanding the use of Vital Strike).
Woohoo. I just made Spring Attack useful in dungeon crawls!
Also, I like the idea of using it in conjunction with Acrobatics to get to the enemy and vault over them, striking as you do such and moving past them. Sweet idea and manner to approach your real target (the enemy caster behind their tank).
Also, I like the idea of using it in conjunction with Acrobatics to get to the enemy and vault over them, striking as you do such and moving past them. Sweet idea and manner to approach your real target (the enemy caster behind their tank).
And that approach is legal, without any doubt.
You could even jump back your meat shield after the attack.(Somehow I have a picture of a heavy armored dwarf spinning through the air Yoda-style...)
|
for those of you who say that it is not possible:
Would you, as a GM, allow a gargoyle to make a flyby attack vs that dwarf? If so, how are they different to you? In both cases, the attacker is making an attack from an occupied square and could be knocked prone and end up in an illegal square.
I see no problems with it, as I have always viewed spring attack as the character was moving the whole time. The character ends their movement at the end of their turn.
for those of you who say that it is not possible:
Would you, as a GM, allow a gargoyle to make a flyby attack vs that dwarf? If so, how are they different to you? In both cases, the attacker is making an attack from an occupied square and could be knocked prone and end up in an illegal square.
Is the gargoyle on the ground or flying 5' up in the air? :) Teehee
One caveat to remember:
You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor.
for those of you who say that it is not possible:
Would you, as a GM, allow a gargoyle to make a flyby attack vs that dwarf? If so, how are they different to you? In both cases, the attacker is making an attack from an occupied square and could be knocked prone and end up in an illegal square.
I am not really sure about what comparison you are making here... Is the hallway only 5 ft high? The no, of course he can't move past all the other PCs, and he couldn't stand around on the head of the dwarf, taking his standard action.
If the hallway is 10 ft high, then he could do it just fine, although he would provoke a large amount of AoOs on the way.I see no problems with it, as I have always viewed spring attack as the character was moving the whole time. The character ends their movement at the end of their turn.
That is a valid interpretation. But the interpretation that it is two movements (due to the wording, before and after the attack) is just as reasonable.
I think that any GM is in his right placed to disallow, without having to make houserules. Whether I would do that, I am not really sure.|
Developer
|
The basic question is one move or two. If it's one move it's legal, if it's two it's not.
I feel the rules would have it be two moves due to the description in the feat.
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.
The attack is allowed to interrupt movement, but then you move before and after the attack. It does not say "you may make the attack during movement." Which indicates something happening in the course of a single move, like drawing a weapon if you've got a +1 BAB.
As written it's move > attack > move, and we've established you cannot end a move in an illegal space. It does not say you cannot end your turn in such a square, it says end your move. The initial move ends in an illegal square, ergo it cannot work.
And for what it's worth, The gargoyle wouldn't be allowed this tactic either. It's not about the attack, it's about the movement.
For what it's worth, Fly By Attack is worded a little differently...
When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Seems pretty clear that with fly by, it's a single move with the standard interrupting.
|
Developer
|
For what it's worth, Fly By Attack is worded a little differently...
When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.Seems pretty clear that with fly by, it's a single move with the standard interrupting.
You are correct... huh, Flyby just keeps making spring attack look worse and worse.
Especially since you can Vital Strike on the Flyby.
Oh, and I houserule an exception allowing Vital Strike on a Spring Attack. It's a natural combination, and I dislike that the rules forbid it. For spring attacking while occupying the same space, the squeezing rule above is the house rule we use. You can do it, but it's harder.
You are correct... huh, Flyby just keeps making spring attack look worse and worse.
Apart from the fact that flyby attack is provoking attack of opportunity when you leave the threatened square. So it isn't that good for actually making flyby attacks... (3.5 had improved flyby attack which allowed you to do it without AoO when attacking, but I haven't seen this in Pathfinder).
Flyby attack is generally a badly worded feat. The whole "another standard action" could be (wrongly) interpreted to suggest that you gain an extra standard action even though you spend one already.
And eventhough the standard action is taken during the move action, it is discussable whether it is one or two moves, as you will have stopped moving when performing the standard action (which might be some action that requires you to stand still).
The wording of the feat references "moving" not a "move action." Moving before and after the attack occur as part of a single move action.
This seems completely clear and plain to me that by RAW the action taken by the OP is completely legal. Sure you can make all sorts of arguments about how the RAI SHOULD be interpreted, but the RAW is clear. You can do it.
House rule it how you will if you want to, but there is nothing wrong with attacking from an "occupied square" if you are using the spring attack feat. There is nothing in the RAW about squeezing if you are moving through an allies square in a five foot hallway. There is something in the RAW about being able to move freely through squares occupied by allies.
Me personally I wouldn't bat an eye at this. It's completely RAW, does not overpower the game and allows a player to leverage his chosen feats. It's all win to me.
The wording of the feat references "moving" not a "move action." Moving before and after the attack occur as part of a single move action.
This seems completely clear and plain to me that by RAW the action taken by the OP is completely legal. Sure you can make all sorts of arguments about how the RAI SHOULD be interpreted, but the RAW is clear. You can do it.
House rule it how you will if you want to, but there is nothing wrong with attacking from an "occupied square" if you are using the spring attack feat. There is nothing in the RAW about squeezing if you are moving through an allies square in a five foot hallway. There is something in the RAW about being able to move freely through squares occupied by allies.
Me personally I wouldn't bat an eye at this. It's completely RAW, does not overpower the game and allows a player to leverage his chosen feats. It's all win to me.
I really don't think there is any basis for calling your interpretation any more RAW than the other. RAW is everything but clear on this. And I fail to see how your interpretation is based on RAW.
You mention that "moving before and after the attack occur as part of a single move action".
But spring attack is a full-round action, so talking about a move action is not RAW (and imo hardly relevant).
Even if it happened during a single move action (like flyby attack) the rules (as written) about 'ending your movement' does not refer to 'move action', it refers to 'movement'. This is just as well
When Spring Attack allows you to move before and after the attack, that highly signifies two moves (one before and one after) and not a single flowing motion during which an attack suddenly occurs.
|
Developer
|
I really don't think there is any basis for calling your interpretation any more RAW than the other. RAW is everything but clear on this. And I fail to see how your interpretation is based on RAW.You mention that "moving before and after the attack occur as part of a single move action".
But spring attack is a full-round action, so talking about a move action is not RAW (and imo hardly relevant).Even if it happened during a single move action (like flyby attack) the rules (as written) about 'ending your movement' does not refer to 'move action', it refers to 'movement'. This is just as well
When Spring Attack allows you to move before and after the attack, that highly signifies two moves (one before and one after) and not a single flowing motion during which an attack suddenly occurs.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree and see if Paizo agrees with you or me then.
Movement is not a move action. Moving before and after the attack does not mean two move actions. It just means "movement." I believe my reading is "RAW" because I am not reading anything into the interpretation of the feat that isn't explicitly stated in the Rules As Written whereas your reading is interpreting moving before and after the attack as two separate move events. The feat does not say "move, stop, attack, and move again." That is how you are INTERPRETING it.
That's why I think my reading is more RAW. But as I said, we'll have to see how Paizo reads this.
|
Developer
|
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree and see if Paizo agrees with you or me then.
Movement is not a move action. Moving before and after the attack does not mean two move actions. It just means "movement." I believe my reading is "RAW" because I am not reading anything into the interpretation of the feat that isn't explicitly stated in the Rules As Written whereas your reading is interpreting moving before and after the attack as two separate move events. The feat does not say "move, stop, attack, and move again." That is how you are INTERPRETING it.
That's why I think my reading is more RAW. But as I said, we'll have to see how Paizo reads this.
You're reading the phrase move action. You're the only one putting it in there. Neither our interpretations nor the RAW call upon that phrase. As far as I can tell, you're claiming we're wrong because we say it's separate move actions. We do not say that. No one has said that.
We say it is two seperate moves, as in move, attack, move again. Not move action, standard action, move action (which only a Monk of the 4 winds can do).
"You can move both before and after the attack" is not the equivalent of "You can attack at any point during the move," which is the paraphrased flyby attack.
The rules say you cannot end a move (not a move action, but a move) in another creatures' square. You end move 1 of the spring attack full-round action in another creature's space. Ergo it's illegal as posted. Move, not move action. We're the only ones applying the RAW here.
As written it is not a single movement. Were it, it could have been worded like Flyby Attack. It was not. As written it's two separate movements with an attack in between, not an attack during one movement.
Sorry to say, but your reading ignores the "as written" aspect of RAW.
Alorha, you´re right that ´move action´ per se doesn´t have anything to do with this (he should have simply referred to the Spring-Attack Action), but the Feat referring to moving before and after the attack doesn´t actually imply that your movement ever stopped, or that those are separate movements:
A runner on a track is moving before and after crossing the finish line, without ever stopping... Choosing to describe it that way doesn´t imply any ending of movement. It clearly seems within the realms of imaginability that one can run towards somebody, stab/bash them, and continue running away without ever stopping or even slowing down. Further, your interpretation that movement has ´ended´ in the middle of the Spring Attack would suggest that Spring Attack is no longer usable via Jumping against target in mid-air, since if your movement ended, you would immediately fall.
To me, ´ending your movement´ must depend on the discreteness of actions since that´s what the game´s based on, Free, Swift, Move, Standard, Full-Round, and to a lesser extent ´interrupt´ actions like Immediate and AoO´s are what we have to work with. The fact that you are attacking somebody, drawing a weapon, talking or using other free or swift actions DURING your movement/action doesn´t end that movement/action, it is still continuing until the actions completes on it´s own accord (i.e. you are out of movement distance) or you choose to end it prematurely.
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree and see if Paizo agrees with you or me then.
Movement is not a move action. Moving before and after the attack does not mean two move actions. It just means "movement." I believe my reading is "RAW" because I am not reading anything into the interpretation of the feat that isn't explicitly stated in the Rules As Written whereas your reading is interpreting moving before and after the attack as two separate move events. The feat does not say "move, stop, attack, and move again." That is how you are INTERPRETING it.
That's why I think my reading is more RAW. But as I said, we'll have to see how Paizo reads this.
You're reading the phrase move action. You're the only one putting it in there. Neither our interpretations nor the RAW call upon that phrase. As far as I can tell, you're claiming we're wrong because we say it's separate move actions. We do not say that. No one has said that.
We say it is two seperate moves, as in move, attack, move again. Not move action, standard action, move action (which only a Monk of the 4 winds can do).
"You can move both before and after the attack" is not the equivalent of "You can attack at any point during the move," which is the paraphrased flyby attack.
The rules say you cannot end a move (not a move action, but a move) in another creatures' square. You end move 1 of the spring attack full-round action in another creature's space. Ergo it's illegal as posted. Move, not move action. We're the only ones applying the RAW here.
As written it is not a single movement. Were it, it could have been worded like Flyby Attack. It was not. As written it's two separate movements with an attack in between, not an attack during one movement.
Sorry to say, but your reading ignores the "as written" aspect of RAW.
Heh... I guess we'll let the readers decide who is more RAW on this. I agree that I should not have used the term "move action" but that's just a semantic thing, the reading I have provided is, I believe, Rules As Written. You can interpret as you like. I feel pretty confident that if we get a Paizo ruling on this, mine will be the one they support. To support your interpretation would, I believe, require an actual errata, meaning new RAW.
|
Developer
|
The fact that you are attacking somebody, drawing a weapon, talking or using other free or swift actions DURING your movement/action doesn´t end that movement/action, it is still continuing until the actions completes on it´s own accord (i.e. you are out of movement distance) or you choose to end it prematurely.
I see your interpretation, and understand where you're coming from, but the wording of the feat screams to me that it's two different movements. The feat, when decribing when the attack occurs does not anywhere mention "during."
Your concept of the maneuver (note I don't mean combat maneuver... cursed rules language) makes sense, but due to the nature of turn-based play and a grid system, sometimes the rules themselves get in the way. Just like you can move up an vital strike, but can't charge and vital strike. I can hit really hard... just not when I'm charging and giving up defense to hit harder (which oddly, in this case, increases my chance of hitting instead of damage).
I'm not opposed to a system that allows this, I just don't feel the wording as it is treats it as a continuous motion. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again, but I cannot see how the specifics of the feat, notably its differences from Flyby Attack or the drawing while moving rule, is anything but multiple moves broken up by something else. Both of those mention "during," but Spring Attack does not. If it did, I'd agree with you. As it doesn't I cannot.
Hmm, I've read both sides and both have good points, but personally I lean to "in the spirit of fly by attack". And Shot on the Run, which I blanked out on til now...
This is because the Spring Attacker is not ever "ending their movement" (in this case their movement would end when their Full Round action is complete) which would be the only reason to invoke the rule in question.
It states: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. IMO since it is their turn until they either declare their full-round action (Spring Attack) is over OR move their maximum allowable distance, they can't be in violation of the rule.
Hmm, I've read both sides and both have good points, but personally I lean to "in the spirit of fly by attack". And Shot on the Run, which I blanked out on til now...
This is because the Spring Attacker is not ever "ending their movement" (in this case their movement would end when their Full Round action is complete) which would be the only reason to invoke the rule in question.
It states: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. IMO since it is their turn until they either declare their full-round action (Spring Attack) is over OR move their maximum allowable distance, they can't be in violation of the rule.
I agree.
Greg
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.
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.
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.
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?