|
I had a discussion with my DM the other day. During a fight, my rogue got into a flanking position, and I took my Sneak-dice, when my DM said, I am not flanking at all.
The other flanker was our oracle, and my DM explained, that spell-users don't threaten adjacent enemies...
I never heard of this before and couldn't find a rule for this.
Was my DM correct?!
That MIGHT only be true - I believe - if the oracle wouldn't wield any weapon or having unarmed strikes NOT counting as weapons.
Other than that, your GM talks s*&#.
I had a discussion with my DM the other day. During a fight, my rogue got into a flanking position, and I took my Sneak-dice, when my DM said, I am not flanking at all.
The other flanker was our oracle, and my DM explained, that spell-users don't threaten adjacent enemies...I never heard of this before and couldn't find a rule for this.
Was my DM correct?!
Unarmed characters (spellcaster or not) would not threaten, armed characters (spellcaster or not) would threaten. Note that unarmed strike would count as a weapon, as would a cast touch spell holding a charge. In wour example, if the oracle was not wielding some kind of weapon there would be no flanking bonus, but if the oracle had a staff or dagger there would.
Note that unarmed strike would count as a weapon,
Was there errata that normal unarmed strikes threaten?
Because...
Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)...
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Attacks of Opportunity...
Threatened Squares:If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Also, I am not sure the rules are clear on this, but don't be surprised if the GM rules a caster in the middle of casting a 1 round casting time spell doesn't threaten.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
If you don't have the feat you don't threaten unless your a monk.
I believe that was a typo/bad expression on his behalf.
If you are unarmed and do NOT count your U-strikes as weapons (aka you have the impr. Unarmed Strike feat) you DO NOT threaten.
Question is: What about "unskilled" bar-room brawls?
Is noone threatening? Or is then everyone threating?
-------
How about:
Creatures that are considered unarmed (neither weapons nor natural attacks) only threaten other "unarmed" creatures.
No one threatens otherwise you would set off a chain of combat reflex AoO each persons turn.
Is noone threatening? Or is then everyone threating?
-------
How about:
Creatures that are considered unarmed (neither weapons nor natural attacks) only threaten other "unarmed" creatures.
Nobody threatens and letting folks threaten would ruin the options opened up by the lack of AoOs.
No one threatens otherwise you would set off a chain of combat reflex AoO each persons turn.
You say it as if it's a bad thing.
Sure, verisimilitude is shattered. But a long chain of counter-counter-counter-attacks can be great fun. Especially when someone misses halfway through the sequence.
So the critter somehow knew that the Oracle didn't have IUS or wasn't hiding a dagger...
right........
OF COURSE: Unarmed combatants would NOT trigger AoO for simply attacking another UNARMED combatant!
But for movement? Why not?
Pretty sure you only need 1 hand free for casting? If so, just say that you are always carrying a dagger.... Whether you USE it or not is up to you... ;-)
Aiddar
IIRC, there are certain classes that explicitly allow to cast spells with only one free hand (I think the magus was one).
So, according to this: NO, you need two FREE hands to cast a spell (with S components).
This would make the dagger in hand a bit of a problem and the OP's GM is actually right...
Are you sure that having armor spikes REALLY count as being armed?
And BTW: I am pretty sure any gloves/gauntlets are NOT permitted for casting.
IIRC, there are certain classes that explicitly allow to cast spells with only one free hand (I think the magus was one).
So, according to this: NO, you need two FREE hands to cast a spell (with S components).
This would make the dagger in hand a bit of a problem and the OP's GM is actually right...
Well, let me put it this way...
Let's just have a look at the rules. The Core Rulebook, to be exact.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
So, just where did you get that 'two free hands' BS from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong so:
Damn You! ;)
I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong so:
Damn You! ;)
Damning an angel? Tsk tsk tsk ;)
I am a druid and a dragon, I don't care for the outer planes.
;)
I had a discussion with my DM the other day. During a fight, my rogue got into a flanking position, and I took my Sneak-dice, when my DM said, I am not flanking at all.
The other flanker was our oracle, and my DM explained, that spell-users don't threaten adjacent enemies...I never heard of this before and couldn't find a rule for this.
Was my DM correct?!
What was explained, that spellcasters don't threaten adjacent enemies, is wrong. There is a tiny chance that the DM understands the rules correctly, but used bad wording that gave you the wrong impression. If the DM said, "He cast a spell, so he was not threatening," he could have meant that the oracle cast a spell, which meant that he thought the oracle had not drawn his weapon, and therefore was not threatening.
But that stretches credibility. If the party was in dangerous territory, the oracle probably had his weapon in hand already and cast the spell with his other hand. If he wears a shield on one arm and left his weapon in its scabbard to have one hand free for spellcasting, the shield itself counts as a weapon because it can shield bash.
One case is iffy. If the oracle uses a two-handed weapon, then he can release one hand from the weapon to free one hand for spellcasting and afterwards re-establish the grip back to holding the weapon in two hands to threaten. However, the Pathfinder rules say nothing about the timing of shifting grip, so we GMs have to decide whether re-establishing the grip is a free action or the same as drawing a weapon (a move action or a non-action taken as part of movement). If your DM treats re-establishing the grip to be like drawing, and the oracle used his move action before casting the spell, then the oracle would have no opportunity to re-establish his grip to be able to threaten with his weapon again. But invoking unwritten rules oblige the DM to explain very carefully.
Monks own bar fights.
It is quite possible that an oracle could have been built or played in such a way as not to threaten an adjacent square. What that oracle was doing in melee is another question. Without getting into what the "real world" is like and whether a character would "know" or realize that an adjacent foe was armed or now, just sticking to the actual rules, if the oracle was unarmed, then he/she likely did not threaten, and if they don't threaten, they don't flank.
Not saying the GM did it right or wrong, just saying that according to the rules, it is quite possible the GM did it right.
But, if the GM said that the oracle didn't threaten because he/she is a spell-caster, that is not correct. Spellcasters can threaten just as well as anyone. But they need a weapon or special ability to do so.
This might not be RAW but it might be under RAI.
If you have the Improved Trip feat you can trip (with your hands) without provoking an attack of opportunity.
I think I could rule that you are threatening if you have the ability to trip them.
You have to be actively wielding it to threathen. That's the threat after all.Pretty sure you only need 1 hand free for casting? If so, just say that you are always carrying a dagger.... Whether you USE it or not is up to you... ;-)
Aiddar
Define actively wielding. The rules saw if you have the ability to melee into adjacent squares your threatning. If you threaten a square then you count for flanking purposes. Just because you didn't attack last round doesn't mean you forfit that ability any more than you forfit your ability to make AoO.
You have to be actively wielding it to threathen. That's the threat after all.Define actively wielding. The rules saw if you have the ability to melee into adjacent squares your threatning. If you threaten a square then you count for flanking purposes. Just because you didn't attack last round doesn't mean you forfit that ability any more than you forfit your ability to make AoO.
Always assume that if you have a weapon in your hand you threaten with it.
If you have a dagger in your hand and someone moves out of your threatened square you are entitled to an Attack of Opportunity on them.
If you get an Attack of Opportunity you are wielding the dagger actively.
Always carrying a weapon in one of your hands is always a good idea for a spell caster.
The problem is you will alway have to mention that you are drawing it to your GM. Because your GM should be a jerk about you not mentioning it because he Has to be a jerk to the fighter about it. :)
|
|
First of all, thanx for your answers.
I always thought, that if a NPC which has enemies on two of his sites is always flanked, because no matter what they are doing, he has to divert his attention to both of them.
If he is not paying attention to the oracle (in the example I gave), than why should he be allowed an AoO if the oracle is casting a spell?
And if he is allowed an AoO when the oracle is casting, the rogue on the other side should be allowed to sneak him.
The oracle might actually not be casting, but the npc has to pay attention to him, in case he does and therefore is flanked, because he has to take care of both enemies next to him.
At least, that is how I see it...
|
|
The oracle has no natural weapons, and the DM said, that as long as a spellcaster is not casting he is not threatening anyone...
But that would mean, as long as the fighter is not attacking with his sword, he's not threatening as well...
In any case, the defender has to divert his attention to both sides of him (no matter if the oracle is actually casting or the fighter is attacking with his weapon), because they COULD harm him anytime. Therefore he should be flanked!
The oracle has no natural weapons, and the DM said, that as long as a spellcaster is not casting he is not threatening anyone...
But that would mean, as long as the fighter is not attacking with his sword, he's not threatening as well...
In any case, the defender has to divert his attention to both sides of him (no matter if the oracle is actually casting or the fighter is attacking with his weapon), because they COULD harm him anytime. Therefore he should be flanked!
I agree with you totally.
The Oracle may have Improved Unarmed Strike...
They may have a concealed weapon...
They may be delaying their action to cast a spell...
The oracle has no natural weapons, and the DM said, that as long as a spellcaster is not casting he is not threatening anyone...
But that would mean, as long as the fighter is not attacking with his sword, he's not threatening as well...
In any case, the defender has to divert his attention to both sides of him (no matter if the oracle is actually casting or the fighter is attacking with his weapon), because they COULD harm him anytime. Therefore he should be flanked!
The thing is this: It doesn't matter if the person could hurt you in other ways (such as by casting a spell or by firing a ranged weapon); the only things that matter in terms of threatening/flanking is the ability to hit the person in melee.
A spellcaster who doesn't wield any weapons (and who doesn't have improved unarmed strike) will only threaten/flank if they hold the charge of a melee touch spell.
A spellcaster who doesn't wield any weapons (and who doesn't have improved unarmed strike) will only threaten/flank if they hold the charge of a melee touch spell.
And how do they know that the Oracle doesn't have IUS other than the GM metagaming in such a way as to screw over the rogue?
What? Are you saying that the rogue should get a flanking bonus even when no flank exists?
Your players would likely be mighty angry if you try to pull that trick off against the PCs.
The rules for combat don't assume everyone stands still until their turn comes about. Those who threaten are those who attempt to find holes in their opponent's defenses. If the spellcaster doesn't have any means to do so, then the opponent is certainly aware of that (since the spellcaster isn't trying to stick a dagger into him, or trying to punch him).
There's no metagaming involved.
|
|
You have to be actively wielding it to threathen. That's the threat after all.Pretty sure you only need 1 hand free for casting? If so, just say that you are always carrying a dagger.... Whether you USE it or not is up to you... ;-)
Aiddar
You have a clear definition of what is "to threathen" in Pathfinder?
Example of dubious situations:
- you have a weapon in hand and you have cast a spell this round. Do you threaten?
- same situation, but you are using a light shield to and have passed the weapon in the shield hand while casting and then passed it back on your weapon hand. it is ready and threaten?
- you don't have a weapon in hand, but you have a shield. It is enough to threaten? It can be used for a shield bash but that is non identical to being a weapon.
- you have a 2 handed longspear and spiked gauntlets. What area are you threatening? the area threatened by your reach weapon or the area adjacent to you? When you choose what area you are threatening.
What? Are you saying that the rogue should get a flanking bonus even when no flank exists?
Your players would likely be mighty angry if you try to pull that trick off against the PCs.
The rules for combat don't assume everyone stands still until their turn comes about. Those who threaten are those who attempt to find holes in their opponent's defenses. If the spellcaster doesn't have any means to do so, then the opponent is certainly aware of that (since the spellcaster isn't trying to stick a dagger into him, or trying to punch him).
There's no metagaming involved.
Explain to me how the opponent is aware that the Oracle hasn't got IUS or isn't delaying a touch attack or hasn't got a concealed weapon?
EDIT: You say yourself that the rules of combat assume that the Oracle isn't just standing there like a lemon so why does the opponent all of a sudden knows that the Oracle is no threat?
If he is not paying attention to the oracle (in the example I gave), than why should he be allowed an AoO if the oracle is casting a spell?
Because the rule aren't realistically perfect.
They wonderfully intersect realism and ease of use.
The best thing to do is just to keep reading the rules.
Build a strong wall of rules that you can lean your back against.
I already explained my view on that, Spacelard, in the very post you quoted.
Like I said, the combat rules are an approximation of what actually happens in a round. The fighter knows the oracle isn't trying to punch him because the oracle actually isn't trying to punch him.
If you don't care about imagining the situation in a way that makes sense according to the rules, I suggest you simply use the rules as they are written:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
***
Edit: He is paying attention to the oracle (that's why he could make an AoO if the oracle casts a spell), but he doesn't have to divert his defenses toward the oracle (by dodging the oracle's attacks, or by using his shield to defend himself against them) and thus he isn't flanked.
|
|
The oracle has no natural weapons, and the DM said, that as long as a spellcaster is not casting he is not threatening anyone...
But that would mean, as long as the fighter is not attacking with his sword, he's not threatening as well...
In any case, the defender has to divert his attention to both sides of him (no matter if the oracle is actually casting or the fighter is attacking with his weapon), because they COULD harm him anytime. Therefore he should be flanked!
Every creature in Pathfinder (and 3.5) has 360° vision. They don't divide their attantion between multiple combatants and other persons they can perceive. They are even aware if the invisible guy near them is threatening them with a weapon or not.
So "diverting" your attention isn't sufficent to allow people to sneak attack. You need to have 2 person threatening the target with draw weapons or improved unarmed strike in appropriate positions.
I already explained my view on that, Spacelard, in the very post you quoted.
And I asked you to explain to me how the opponent has decided that the Oracle is not a threat.
The issue is how do you determine what is threatening and what isn't. Yes if you are unarmed you don't normally threaten but how does the opponent know that the Oracle hasn't got IUS and therefore can't threaten?
EDIT: grammar
|
|
I already explained my view on that, Spacelard, in the very post you quoted.
And I asked you to explain to me how the opponent has decided that the Oracle is not a threat.
The issue is how do you determine what is threatening and what isn't. Yes if you are unarmed you don't normally threaten but how does the opponent know that the Oracle hasn't got IUS and therefore can't threaten?
EDIT: grammar
It work in the opposite direction: "you don't threaten unless you are actively threatening", there is no need for the target to decide who threaten or not, thretening or not is part of what the attacker is doing.
The issue is how do you determine what is threatening and what isn't. Yes if you are unarmed you don't normally threaten but how does the opponent know that the Oracle hasn't got IUS and therefore can threaten?
I have explained that, twice. The opponent is aware that the oracle isn't currently trying to stick a dagger in him or punch him.
And regardless of if the opponent knows or not (if you somehow feel that's "metagaming"), the rules know. The rules specify when a flanking bonus is gained and what it means to be "threatened". If that isn't fulfilled by a given situation, then there's no flanking.
The point I am trying (badly) to make is the issue of defining "threatening". To me the OP's example is no more ridiculous than an AC40 fighter being flanked by a rogue and a kitten.
RAW the kitten if attacking is threatening and therefore everyone gets a +2 flanking bonus. The fighter gets no chance to ignore the threat because of RAW.
So why should the GM's NPC be able to ignore the Oracle? After all the Oracle MIGHT be a threat as I have explained. To be honest I don't think we have enough information as to the actual situation but IMO the GM was screwing the rogue PC out of his sneak attack.
Its the perception of what is threat which is important and IMO the Oracle should have been perceived as a threat and therefore the rogue get his sneak attack. However if the Oracle was just stood there like a lemon then I agree, the Oracle is not threatening.
EDIT: I can see no where in the OP's statements that the Oracle was unarmed... He hasn't said if the Oracle had a dagger or a staff in hand but has said that the Oracle has no natural attacks. The GM has said that the Oracle wasn't flanking because "they are spellcasters" from my understanding
|
There is no need for any creature flanked to know if they are flanked.
There is no need for any creature to know that they are threatened, to be threatened.
Spellcasters ability to cast spells has nothing to do with whether or not they threaten. The two are unrelated.
Where these added complications of whether or not a creature threatens, or if a creature is flanked, come from a misunderstanding of the rules.
Someone is creating rules that don't exist.
There is no need for any creature flanked to know if they are flanked.
There is no need for any creature to know that they are threatened, to be threatened.
Spellcasters ability to cast spells has nothing to do with whether or not they threaten. The two are unrelated.
Where these added complications of whether or not a creature threatens, or if a creature is flanked, come from a misunderstanding of the rules.
Someone is creating rules that don't exist.
After reading this thread, this post is the most accurate answer to the 'remaining unanswered questions' here.