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.
Oh, I agree that there's not enough information regarding the oracle in the original situation, and it's certainly possible that there should have been a flank.
I'm not sure there's ever been a character in any of my games that hasn't wielded at least a dagger or a quarterstaff, just for situations like flanking and making AoOs.
The point I am trying (badly) to make is the issue of defining "threatening".
Spacelard, you're trying to apply your "realistic" definition of how you think flanking works, adding an extra requirement of "knowing" that the rules do not have.
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.
Of course, you *do* realize that the kitten is a bad example because it has to enter the Fighter's space to attack... and it does not threaten the spaces around it.. so it does not flank? :)
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.
The RAW does not mention perceived threats.. it only mentions the ability to be a threat as a requirement.
Personally, this is why I like the facing variant in Unearthed Arcana (for 3.5). 3.x/Pathfinder Flanking attempts to simulate the effects of facing without ending the "360-degree" vision effect that Diego Rossi mentioned. Using actual Facing, and the altered flanking that goes with them, may better suit your suspension of disbelief.
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
I would agree that, without more of the context, it is not possible to tell whether the GM got it wrong, or got it right and described it badly.
|
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!
An AOO is an immediate physical attack. Spellcasters on the other hand do not have an immediate casting option.
Now a spellcaster who's wielding a dagger or some other one handed weapon, or forgoing spellcasting and two handing a staff CAN do an AOO.
On the other hand, a bare handed caster with no special feats or class abilities, does not threaten unless he's holding something like a shocking grasp charge.
And on the other other hand, a spellcaster who has cast a spell and then moved into melee with a weapon drawn does threaten; similarly, if he cast defensively in melee that turn, he would still threaten so long as he was wielding a weapon. Casting a spell doesn't take away threatening.
|
The oracle didn't had a weapon in hand and had already cast a spell that round. Further, he doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike! Anything else I need to write here?
I now can see, how RAW wants me to solve this, but I think I will stick to the idea of having to divert attention between flanking enemies, wether they have a weapon in hand or not. I think I will rule that as long as two friends stand opposite of an enemy, they flank him and get their boni. Its easier, faster and more fun - and easier to explain as well... :)
And thanx again for all the thoughts here!
Good luck with that and your players they will love how rouges can sneak attack them even if their buddy is standing opposite picking his nose.
|
|
Casting a spell doesn't take away threatening.The only time it would do so is if the caster is still casting. That is they are casting a 1+ round casting time spell.
In this specific case it boils down to what we've NOT been told.
-James
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Does it say anywhere in the rules that you cannot take an attack of opportunity while casting a full round action spell?
Considering that a full-attack is a full round action, and you can take attacks of opportunity after that. There are many other actions that take a full round, and none of those stop you from threatening.
|
|
Ok, ok. The rules are clear and I know that now. But anyway, I think I'll give it a try for a session or two.
If an opponent is unconsious or helpless, I don't have to fear him. And there's no need to sneak attack an unconscious or helpless enemy either, because I can "coup de grace" him.
What with the wizards Acid Dart ability from the Conjuration school, or the Force Missile from the Evocation school? Would he be threatening and therefore flanking if he had this ability, even from 10 feet away, like an ogre with its reach?
I really thought, I've read that awareness thing once, but maybe this was in a discussion here on the boards or in the 3.5 or even 3.0 booky/era.
Anyway, thanks for your clarifications and help anyone, really appreciated!
But one more thing - casting spells - really with both hands free, not only one? So, if a wizard has a staff of the Magi he has to drop it everytime he wants to cast a spell?
|
|
The oracle didn't had a weapon in hand and had already cast a spell that round. Further, he doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike! Anything else I need to write here?
I now can see, how RAW wants me to solve this, but I think I will stick to the idea of having to divert attention between flanking enemies, wether they have a weapon in hand or not. I think I will rule that as long as two friends stand opposite of an enemy, they flank him and get their boni. Its easier, faster and more fun - and easier to explain as well... :)
And thanx again for all the thoughts here!
If we go into guessing intentions and capabilities, how the target know that they are "friends"?
If there is a invisible attacker to which the target is incapable to react he don't give a flanking bonus to the other guy?
The target can chose to purposefully disregard an enemy to concentrate on the other, negating the flanking bonus to one of them while being flat footed against the other?
If you want to go this way the only solution is to take out your 3.0 manual and use the facing rules in it, doing it your way is a half way solution that generate more problems than you think.
|
|
Casting a spell doesn't take away threatening.The only time it would do so is if the caster is still casting. That is they are casting a 1+ round casting time spell.
In this specific case it boils down to what we've NOT been told.
-James
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Does it say anywhere in the rules that you cannot take an attack of opportunity while casting a full round action spell?
Considering that a full-attack is a full round action, and you can take attacks of opportunity after that. There are many other actions that take a full round, and none of those stop you from threatening.
1 round casting time, not full round casting time. They are different.
Full round casting time: I start to cast at the start of my round and and at the end of my round, I can take a 5' step before or after casting.
1 round casting time: 1 start casting at the start of my round, I will finish just before the start of my next round. I can move 5' during my round
|
|
What with the wizards Acid Dart ability from the Conjuration school, or the Force Missile from the Evocation school? Would he be threatening and therefore flanking if he had this ability, even from 10 feet away, like an ogre with its reach?
Ranged attacks don't threaten. Sometime they can be used for AoO if you have the right feats.
Jet another situation in which your awareness thing create problems.
"There is a guy 30' over there, he could have a throwing dagger or be capable to use force missiles, he threaten you."
"That guy with the bow 400' away in the woods can attack you so he is giving a flanking bonus to his buddy here."
Even better:
"Someone in that direction has sniped you, now he is hiding. You are aware there was an enemy there, so he give a flanking bonus to his friends on the other side."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting a spell doesn't take away threatening.The only time it would do so is if the caster is still casting. That is they are casting a 1+ round casting time spell.
In this specific case it boils down to what we've NOT been told.
-James
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Does it say anywhere in the rules that you cannot take an attack of opportunity while casting a full round action spell?
Considering that a full-attack is a full round action, and you can take attacks of opportunity after that. There are many other actions that take a full round, and none of those stop you from threatening.
1 round casting time, not full round casting time. They are different.
Full round casting time: I start to cast at the start of my round and and at the end of my round, I can take a 5' step before or after casting.
1 round casting time: 1 start casting at the start of my round, I will finish just before the start of my next round. I can move 5' during my round
I was wondering about that as well, I would houserule it so that the caster could not make an AoO in this case but I do not think there is an actual rule to disallow it.
|
|
What with the wizards Acid Dart ability from the Conjuration school, or the Force Missile from the Evocation school? Would he be threatening and therefore flanking if he had this ability, even from 10 feet away, like an ogre with its reach?
Ranged attacks don't threaten. Sometime they can be used for AoO if you have the right feats.
Jet another situation in which your awareness thing create problems.
"There is a guy 30' over there, he could have a throwing dagger or be capable to use force missiles, he threaten you."
"That guy with the bow 400' away in the woods can attack you so he is giving a flanking bonus to his buddy here."
Even better:
"Someone in that direction has sniped you, now he is hiding. You are aware there was an enemy there, so he give a flanking bonus to his friends on the other side."
You're absolutelx right there!
But what if the wizard with those abilities is adjacent, not 10 feet away?
The oracle didn't had a weapon in hand and had already cast a spell that round. Further, he doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike! Anything else I need to write here?
I now can see, how RAW wants me to solve this, but I think I will stick to the idea of having to divert attention between flanking enemies, whether they have a weapon in hand or not. I think I will rule that as long as two friends stand opposite of an enemy, they flank him and get their boni. Its easier, faster and more fun - and easier to explain as well... :)
And thanx again for all the thoughts here!
Wait, Dryder, I thought you were playing the rogue. How come you have the authority to make house rules about diverting attention between flanking enemies? Did the DM delegate that authority to you, or are you very confident of your persuasive abilities?
Assuming you have the authority, let me explain why the flanking rules are the way they are. During first edition Dungeons & Dragons, when the Rogue class was called Thief, the Sneak Attack was called Backstab. The thief got a damage bonus because he was literally planting the dagger in the foe's back. But that meant that the foe had his back turned to the thief. In later editions of D&D and in Pathfinder, we don't want the complication of rules about which way a character is facing. It would slow down combat too much. But Sneak Attack was designed to mimic the rule about the character's back being turned, not about the character's attention being diverted (Diverting attention is called Feint. It's in the combat rules). Therefore, flanking is about allies on opposite sides of the foe.
As for the part about the allies being armed, flanking eliminates some obvious cases about an ally being useless. It does not get into complications, because the flanking rule was designed to be quick and simple. Is the ally unconscious, helpless, or unarmed? Then no flanking. And a bow and other weapons that cannot take attacks of opportunity (ignoring a feat that allows that) do not count as armed for flanking purposes.
Part of the reason the flanking rule is supposed to be simple is to avoid the situation you encountered in the original post. It is no fun for the rogue to get into flanking position and then discover that he cannot sneak attack because of a detail he has no influence over. He can influence his allies and ask them to carry melee weapons.
But one more thing - casting spells - really with both hands free, not only one? So, if a wizard has a staff of the Magi he has to drop it everytime he wants to cast a spell?
One hand free if casting a spell with somatic components (that means gestures) or using Magus's Spell Combat ability. Zero hands if no somatic components.
That is why even the spellcasters can go around armed. They always have a spare hand that is not spellcasting, and that hand can hold a dagger or a shield. The dagger is also handy for attacks of opportunity. I presume that the oracle player is a newbie and did not know that. The DM might have been correct about the rules (still suspicious that he gave the wrong reason in his explanation), but he had made a mistake in not helping the newbie player correctly outfit his character. The experienced players and DM ought to advise the new players during character creation.
|
|
Oh my, no, no - what the DM says is law! :)
I would never even think about doing something which my DM doesn't approve. I was only thinking for the campaign I DM...
Anyway, as I said, I totally got the rules now. But still, I don't figure why a wizard with the Acid Dart ability from the Conjuration school, or the Force Missile from the Evocation school would not be threatening a foe. Those are standard actions, as well as a swing with a sword. And then, there's still that thing about Improved Unarmed Strike. How should the foe know that the enemy adjacent to him has it or not...
But well, as you all showed, changing this might get me too much trouble, so...
I was wondering about that as well, I would houserule it so that the caster could not make an AoO in this case but I do not think there is an actual rule to disallow it.
From the PRD
Cast a Spell
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.
This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions.
Now if you have a touch spell cast previously still held you can use that to threaten.
Blackbloodtroll's suggestions seem pretty reasonable, but I'd tell your Oracle to get a spiked gauntlet. This will allow the Oracle to threaten squares and could also help him or her get out of some monster's belly if Swallowed Whole. It seems to me that just about every adventurer should wear one (except maybe Monks, though they still could benefit from having a light piercing weapon that's always "on hand")
Target awareness and opinion has absolutely nothing to do with flanking.
Situation: Two invisible rogues are in melee range on opposite sides of an enemy fighter that is unaware of their locations.
Question: Do the rogues get the flanking bonus?
Important points to consider: The target simply doesn't have any awareness of the fact that he's flanked. There is nothing dividing his attention.