SKR's quote out of context? How so? I suppose in the sense that he was speaking in another thread about a different topic sure, but his point still stands. You can't say a chapter heading (or title heading, or section heading) defines how the rules work. If you read more of that particular post of his they don't even necessarily clump things together accurately. E.g, he was pointing out that just because alchemists were lumped under the spell casters chapter in UM did not make them spell casters. They work like spell casters in many ways, so spell casting rules are relevant to how the alchemist class works. This is very similar to what we are discussing here. Threatening is not synonymous with AoO's (just like alchemist is not synonymous with being a spell caster) but understanding threatening is important to understand how AoO's function (just like understanding how spell casting works is important to understanding how alchemists work).
If we want to come to complete pedantry in the arguments, then you are right though, by RAW you don't ever threaten anyone. Not for AoO's or for flanking.
"Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents" this itself doesn't even tell you how you come to threaten an opponent. It merely says that someone who threatens you could make an AoO because you moved. It doesn't tell us anything at all about how they threatened you - so at the pedantic level of RAW it is impossible to flank or take AoO's because the rules only tell us how we can threaten squares - they never given any indication of how we threaten opponents. The only meaningful interpretation then is that the term 'threatened square' is interchangeable with the term 'threatened opponent' - that is all opponents who are in squares you threaten are opponents that you threaten.
The last bit I talked about was to show that in some situations I could agree with you - that is someone who is completely unaware of a invisible opponent cannot possibly threaten them - but this is an edge case. But just because I agree with you for edge cases doesn't mean the rules support your view for the general case - and that is what I'm trying to explain to no avail here.
I've tried to make one point over and over that you seem to be ignoring. Answer me a question (or two) then: If I am blindfolded, standing 5' away from you, and waving a sword in your direction, is my action a threatening one? Is there any chance (say 50% chance just for fun) that I might actually stab you?
You claim it is nonsensical to say that a person can be threatened by someone who can't see them. I counter your claim with my above questions.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Game rules are simple mechanics.
Blinded is a condition. It does not stop you attacking. You can attack into a square.
If you can attack you threaten.
If you threaten you can flank.I agree it may not make much sense in some circumstances, but that seems to be the way the rules work.
Flanking's pertinent sentence is "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
Blinded is a condition, a pretty negative one. It grants total concealment to your opponents. Total concealment states two pertinent sentences...
1) "You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
2) "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
Threatened is not a condition. It's a step to check for a characters ability for Attacks of Opportunity. 'threatened' and 'able to make attacks of opportunity' are synonymous. If you remove the AoO section from the book there is nothing else that defines threatened or how to threaten. Synonymous.
And since that's what #2 does... A blind creature can not help flank. Well, that's how I am going to run it at my tables.
What it would take to change my opinion at this point? An official ruling that AoO and threatened are not synonymous and can be mutually exclusive of each other (and effectively a splitting up of the AoO section in combat).
|
As with many things, the threatened rules and blindness rules require some GM regulation. I'll give an example later. Its normally easy for a target to move away from a blind creature so it isn't threatening them. They don't suffer an attack of opportunity when they move away. Often the blind person/ thing will have to spend time locating them again.
As per thrikreed's above, you can attack into a square you think he occupies.
You threaten squares into which you can attack.
I understand what people are saying on both sides of the argument. However as I see the RAW you do threaten and thus do flank. Now the examples:
You have a blind fighter. They have Blind-fighting feat. They are actively attacking you each round. They don't threaten you?
A creature with no normal vision and blind sense is attacking you. It knows exactly where you are, but you still have total concealment from it. It doesn't threaten you?
I totally accept necronus's example of the person who is totally unaware of the situation that unfolds next to them being ridiculous. I don't agree with the steps you consider relevant for flanking, just my personal opinion.
There are other example's where you might consider an object to "threaten" a person. Something requiring significant attention such as a piece of spinning machinery you had to actively dodge or a natural hazard. These are not covered by the rules however.
Ultimately it is the GM who will decide what constitutes a threat, obviously there is a grey area here for such polarised opinions to exist.
I think the main problem here is that necronus does not understand what "even when it is not your turn" means. His problem is not with the rules, but with the English language, obviously.
necronus: is English perhaps a second language for you?
Once again, using correct interpretation of English:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
means the exact same as:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You even threaten these squares when it is not your turn."
and NOT
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack when it is not your turn."
This last thing is something completely different and it is certainly not what the rules say.
I did not attack you. I just pointed out what the senternce means, and that it is not what you seem to think it does. Nothing more.
Do you honestly think that
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
means the same as:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack when it is not your turn."?
If yes, then I really cannot help you.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sure I understand what you are saying about threatening someone, even when blindfolded.
And it might be a little threatening, but honestly if someone was standing there blindfolded, or blind, or I was invisible.
The person that would feel threatened would be the blind person. Which is why you get a bonus to hit them I'm guessing, and they can't use their dexterity.
The rules don't tell us why they get a bonus to attack while invisible. Personally I believe its because you can't see the attacks coming at you, and has nothing to do with feeling threatened or not - but that's just my view of it. I may very well feel threatened. That is probably the reason I'm waving my sword where I think my enemy is so that I might get lucky and disable them before their advantage leaves me dead.
I agree with you that his quote is in context, and it was a very good point. I'm just trying to get people to acknowledge that this concept of threatening isn't black and white and it is truly left up to interpretation.
I'm not sure what part of "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" isn't black and white. That's the rule on threatening, period. All other rules we've talked about modify the conditions under which you can take an AoO - none of them modify the rule under which you threaten.
A rogue can sneak attack into the flank because his flanking buddy helps distract the target.
Even in the case of rogue who can see opponent, but you can't, your presence waving your sword blindly still distracts the opponent.
Should a blade held by a blind person threaten a person as much as a person that can see clearly? That should be the real question, shouldn't it?
From a realism stand point I could agree that that would be somewhat less distracting then someone who could see you and target you directly - and from a realism perspective I could see having a lower flanking bonus for it. But at some point realism has to be put in second place to playability. Is this that point? Shrug - who knows.
It's a step to check for a characters ability for Attacks of Opportunity. 'threatened' and 'able to make attacks of opportunity' are synonymous.
I'd be interested to see how you reach this conclusion, show me the logical connections using only the terminology in the rulebook. You've tried to tie this "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus." into the rules regarding total concealment meaning you cannot threaten an unseen person. That degree of semantic wrangling means we can never flank, since the rules never tell us how to threaten a defender.
So how do we make a inference of what it means to threaten a defender? Go to rules about total concealment that say nothing about threatening? Or go to rules about threatening, which that's all they talk about is to how to threaten?
The placement of rules on threatening being under a section on AoO's is irrelevent. For example, all the rules taking damage are in the section of the book related to combat. Does this mean you can only take damage if their is combat involved? Having the damage rules in the combat section is a GOOD place for them because combat is the most common place you will need to worry about damage, but it is not the only place. Having rules on threatening under the section on AoO's is a GOOD place for them because AoO's will be the most common occurance under which you need to understand how threatening works. But as with damage, it is not the only place it comes into play.
Threatened is a state that must exist for an AoO to be able to take place. But it is not the only condition for an AoO to occur - the other condition (or state) being that the enemy must take an action that diverts their attention. If they are truly synonymous then you can only threaten when a enemy takes an action that provokes - yet we know from the flanking rules that an enemy does not need to take a distracting action for a threatening/flanking bonus to occur.
Basic logic principles say if we know a premise A leads to premise B, it does not mean premise B leads to premise A. e.g, all apples are fruit. Not all fruit is apples.
Likewise if A leads to C, and B leads to C, it does not mean A = B.
All apples are fruit. All bananas are fruit. This does not mean all apples are bananas.
If the ability to make an AoO and threatening are synonmous then we can find and replace all instances of the words threatening in the rules with 'gets an AoO', or 'can take an AoO', or some permutation of the same and the rules will still make sense. So lets try that out:
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target is within the threatened area of the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.
Becomes
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target provokes an AoO from the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.
Fast Tumble (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses Acrobatics to move at full speed through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity, the DC of the Acrobatics check does not increase by 10.
Becomes
Fast Tumble (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses Acrobatics to move at full speed through a square provking an AoO without provoking an attack of opportunity, the DC of the Acrobatics check does not increase by 10.
If they are synonmous how can a rogue be in a threatened square and not provoke an AoO?
Steal Glory (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier can steal the glory from another creature's successful strike. Whenever a creature other than the cavalier scores a critical hit against a target that the cavalier is threatening, he can make an attack of opportunity against the same target.
becomes
Steal Glory (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier can steal the glory from another creature's successful strike. Whenever a creature other than the cavalier scores a critical hit against a target that the cavalier took an AoO against, he can make an attack of opportunity against the same target.
Bulwark (Ex): The defender adds his armor check penalty as a bonus to the DC of opponents attempting to Bluff him and Acrobatics checks to pass by him without provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through spaces he threatens.
becomes
Bulwark (Ex): The defender adds his armor check penalty as a bonus to the DC of opponents attempting to Bluff him and Acrobatics checks to pass by him without provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through spaces he took an AoO's in.
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
becomes
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who take an AoO against you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
Destructive Counterstrike (Su): At 16th level, an opponent who activates a magical item while threatened by a soul forger provokes an attack of opportunity, either against the target or to sunder the item. If the item is destroyed, its effects are negated. This ability replaces counterstrike.
becomes
Destructive Counterstrike (Su): At 16th level, an opponent who activates a magical item while taking an AoO by a soul forger provokes an attack of opportunity, either against the target or to sunder the item. If the item is destroyed, its effects are negated. This ability replaces counterstrike.
If you remove the AoO section from the book there is nothing else that defines threatened or how to threaten.
Unless of course they removed AoO's specifically but moved all relevant rules regarding threatening to be under flanking since threatening is relevant to whether you can flank or not as well. There are a few cases in the rules where important information is repeated in multiple places - but usually once a rule is stated how it works they don't repeat it in other parts of the book even though the rule is in full effect. This doesn't mean threatened only exists because AoO's exist.
Let me provide a metaphor of what you are saying, if I was explaining how light bulbs work to you it would likely include at least a partial description about electricity. That is, electricity in a condition that must occur for a light bulb to function. If light bulbs cease to exist does that mean electricity also ceases to exist? This is why SKR's post is relevant regarding chapter headings (or subject headings) do not define how the rules work.
An official ruling that AoO and threatened are not synonymous and can be mutually exclusive of each other (and effectively a splitting up of the AoO section in combat)
They are not mutually exclusive. There is a depedency there, but it is a one way depedency. AoO is dependent on the state of threatening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Actually Thrikreed agrees with me...
Um... No... I don't agree with several lines of your reasoning and one area where we do seem to agree, since I posted the point first you would be agreeing with me.
I'd be interested to see how you reach this conclusion...
I'd highly recommend going back through the thread and reading my posts.
The placement of rules on threatening being under a section on AoO's is irrelevent.
So if we took a feat or skill out and jammed it in a class or race section; that would be irrelevant to the discussion on how that now non-feat or non-skill functioned.? No? Seems pretty relevant to me, as it would be likely considered a class ability instead and function accordingly.
prd wrote:
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target is within the threatened area of the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.
- Becomes
updated prd wrote:
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target is within the area he would normally provoke an AoO from the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.
---
prd wrote:
Fast Tumble (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses Acrobatics to move at full speed through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity, the DC of the Acrobatics check does not increase by 10.
- Becomes
updated prd wrote:
Fast Tumble (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses Acrobatics to move at full speed through an area he would normally provokes an AoO without provoking an attack of opportunity, the DC of the Acrobatics check does not increase by 10.
---
prd wrote:
Steal Glory (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier can steal the glory from another creature's successful strike. Whenever a creature other than the cavalier scores a critical hit against a target that the cavalier is threatening, he can make an attack of opportunity against the same target.
- becomes
updated prd wrote:
Steal Glory (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier can steal the glory from another creature's successful strike. Whenever a creature other than the cavalier scores a critical hit against a target that the cavalier is able to take an AoO against, he can make an attack of opportunity against the same target.
---
prd wrote:
Bulwark (Ex): The defender adds his armor check penalty as a bonus to the DC of opponents attempting to Bluff him and Acrobatics checks to pass by him without provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through spaces he threatens.
- becomes
updated prd wrote:
Bulwark (Ex): The defender adds his armor check penalty as a bonus to the DC of opponents attempting to Bluff him and Acrobatics checks to pass by him without provoking an attack of opportunity for moving through spaces he he would normally provoke an AoO.
---
prd wrote:
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
- becomes
updated prd wrote:
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who are able to take an AoO against you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
---
prd wrote:
Destructive Counterstrike (Su): At 16th level, an opponent who activates a magical item while threatened by a soul forger provokes an attack of opportunity, either against the target or to sunder the item. If the item is destroyed, its effects are negated. This ability replaces counterstrike.
- becomes
update prd wrote:
Destructive Counterstrike (Su): At 16th level, an opponent who activates a magical item while in an area he would normally provokes an AoO by a soul forger provokes an attack of opportunity, either against the target or to sunder the item. If the item is destroyed, its effects are negated. This ability replaces counterstrike.
Unless of course they removed AoO's specifically but moved all relevant rules regarding threatening to be under flanking since threatening is relevant to whether you can flank or not as well. There are a few cases in the rules where important information is repeated in multiple places - but usually once a rule is stated how it works they don't repeat it in other parts of the book even though the rule is in full effect.
In my experience, the moment someone begins using the 3rd person they to figure out why someone at Paizo or WOTC did something; it indicates that specific someone has doubts. So, I guess when Paizo decides to make a ruling on it, then we can have resolution.
Until then you have your opinion and I have mine.
bbangerter what is interesting is everyone seems to think that the rule of threatening trumps everything else in the game.
Not at all.
When you are blinded, paralyzed, stunned or unconscious you can not attack someone anyone.
Paralyzed, stunned, and unconscious all prevent you from making attacks at all. In these cases that means you also don't threaten. I've been over this... never said you could threaten under these conditions. That is also plain from how threatening works. If you can attack into s square you can threaten it - if you are stunned you can't attack at all, so that makes it hard to attack into a square.
If everyone is standing in heavy smoke, and you are standing 15 feet from a Storm Giant, you are still within his reach. He of course can't see you, and he can't attack you.
But he can attack the square you are in, then gets a 50% miss chance. We've been over this as well... remember those questions - a blind person can still kill you with a bit of luck - and you better be looking to dodge his attack because it will still squash you like a bug. And you are watching for his attack, guess what, you're distracted from watching for attacks that are coming from the other direction. And this still has nothing to do with AoO's.
This is your serious argument. Unknown threats can flank you, even though they don't know you are there.
It is because you are fixated on this premise that you aren't making the connection. Invisible doesn't mean someone doesn't know you aren't around. They cannot tell the exact place of your location - but they can (primarily through a successful perception check) know that 1) someone is nearby, and on a really good perception check, 2) pinpoint the exact square you are in. If someone doesn't know you are around they have no reason to try and attack the square you are in the first place.
I'd highly recommend going back through the thread and reading my posts.
I've been through the entire thread - I'm one of the major posters in the thread. I don't recall every single detail of every word you posted. But your logical conclusion didn't make sense the first time, so I'm asking you explain it more clearly.
The placement of rules on threatening being under a section on AoO's is irrelevent.So if we took a feat or skill out and jammed it in a class or race section; that would be irrelevant to the discussion on how that now non-feat or non-skill functioned.? No? Seems pretty relevant to me, as it would be likely considered a class ability instead and function accordingly.
If, let's say, combat reflexes, was moved to the chaper/section on the rogue class, but was written exactly as it is currently, that does not make it a rogue only feature. Nothing in the feat says 'must be a rogue to take this feat'. It would be odd for it to be there, since it wouldn't be restricted to rogues - but that wouldn't change the fact that any character that qualifies for the feat could take it - that's just how feats work.
If we changed it from being a feat to a class ability, well guess what, now its suddenly a feature of the rogue class. So now it is only available to rogues.
Animal companions have a lot to do with druids, so a description of them shows up under druids. But druids are not the only class that can get an animal companion (see rangers). The ranger class lists an animal companion as an option, lists types available then says this. "This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature)". So where should we go to learn more about animal companions for rangers? The druid class - how odd.
Threatened squares have a lot to do with AoO's - they are one of two components that must be met for an AoO to occur. So explaining how threatening works in the AoO section is a very appropriate place to put it. You are merely adding a dual dependency to AoO's/threatening that the rules do not list.
prd wrote:
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target is within the threatened area of the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.- Becomes
updated prd wrote:
Demanding Challenge (Ex): At 12th level, whenever a cavalier declares a challenge, his target must pay attention to the threat he poses. As long as the target is within the area he would normally provoke an AoO from the cavalier, it takes a –2 penalty to its AC from attacks made by anyone other than the cavalier.
... snipped the rest for brevity...
If that was what was meant they could have stated that plainly. Paizo/WOTC could have completely removed the whole description about threatening and said: "You can make an AoO into all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn" - completely stripping the concept of threatening from the game (though that would affect any number of abilities that are dependent only upon threatening that have nothing to do with AoO's).
You would have to rewrite the AoO rules as above to remove the awkward wordings that making the two synonymous creates in the examples I listed. Even with your rewritings the meaning flows awkwardly since AoO's are dependent on that second piece of: the opponent must take a distracting action. Heck even my rewording in the paragraph above doesn't solve that particular head scratching puzzlement.
The problem is you don't provoke an AoO from being in an area. AoO's are more than just an area. AoO's have 1) area (e.g., the threatened square - this is a complete rule in and of itself) and 2) taking certain actions (this is also a complete rule in and of itself - with the whole list of actions that provoke an AoO). These are two foundation rules that both need to be met to allow for the AoO rule to come into effect. Then as extensions to the AoO rules we have more rules that add exceptions. Combat reflexes, can take more than one AoO per round. Total concealment prevents taking AoO's. Mobility feat gives +4 to AC against AoO's due to movement. etc.
Rules for flanking is based upon 1) threatening an opponent 2) being on the opposite side as someone else who is also threatening that opponent. Two base rules (threatening, and opposite sides - no mention of AoO's) as a foundation to a higher law or rule. The basic rules can exist without the higher rules. But the higher rules require the basics to be in place and functioning in their own manner.
We can break down all the various abilities that talk about threatening (some with no mention or association with AoO's at all) into lego sized building blocks. Then we can pack together different sets of lego blocks to build increasingly more complex rules.
AoO is a complex piece built from the basic blocks:
Threatening
Taking a distracting action
Fast tumble if a combination of the blocks:
Threatening
Movement provoking AoO
Acrobatics skill for CMD
Exception to the normal acrobatics vs CMD
Demanding Challenge is a combination of the blocks (note this ability has no mention of AoO's or has anything to do with AoO's):
Threatening
Armor Class Rules
Exception to normal AC rules (in the form of -2 to AC)
Being paralyzed or unconscious is a separate building block that can effect any number of basic or complex rules. It alters, the ability to take move or standard actions at the base level. Move is a basic building block, upon which numerous other rules are built upon. Alter the base block with an exception like this and it alters all the blocks built up from it as well.
Total concealment alters the blocks of:
chances to hit
and ability to make AoO's
And only AoO's, the complex rule, with no effect on either of its basic building blocks. It does not alter threatening, and it does not alter what actions are distracting. The plainest reading of total concealment states it very succinctly "You can't execute an attack of opportunity...". If it was meant to mean, you cannot threaten someone with total concealment, then it would be written that way - with all the implications for other abilities dependent on threatening inherit in that.
In my experience, the moment someone begins using the 3rd person they to figure out why someone at Paizo or WOTC did something; it indicates that specific someone has doubts.
I'm sorry, you are mistaking my style of writing for ... I don't know what - and trying to attribute it to some mental state of being I'm supposedly in - sorry, but this doesn't fly. Your incomplete experience of the use of the 3rd person they has now been expanded to include additional data points that don't coincide with your initial impressions.
I'm human, I make mistakes, I reach incorrect conclusions sometimes. I make decisions sometimes based off incorrect premises. But this isn't one of those times. Show me where my logic and reasoning is flawed in this, and not with a tenuous application of threatened defenders vs threatened squares, and not with edge case scenarios like necronus has given me, or situations where nobody actually knows anyone is in a fight but they are all trying to kill each other anyway.
I gave you a half dozen examples of where making threatening and AoO's synonymous results in nonsensical statements within the rules without a requirement to completely rewrite the description of AoO in order to remove this confusing 'threatening' piece.
I've broken the rules down to their most fundamental building blocks.
I've quoted the RULES AS WRITTEN without adding in additional words that are not actually in the text upon which to base my reasoning (I've expounded on these with plenty of words and examples of my own to try and illustrate). I've inferred things only when the rules don't explicitly spell it out (how does one threaten a defender), and such inferences have been at the most basic, simplest, and direct application.
I've pointed out the incorrect premises upon which you are founding your conclusions.
There, is my first person style more reassuring that I have no doubt I'm correct on this?
Until then you have your opinion and I have mine.
Certainly. That is the fun things about forums, arguing with people from around the world to both share viewpoints and learn from theirs. ;)
How about this then, when you are blind you can not attack another person.
The only time you can attack is on your turn.
How do you threaten when it is not your turn, if you are unable to take actions when it is not your turn.
Your answer to this is right here:
I did not attack you. I just pointed out what the senternce means, and that it is not what you seem to think it does. Nothing more.
Do you honestly think that
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
means the same as:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack when it is not your turn."?
If yes, then I really cannot help you.
That comma that appears just before "even when it is not your turn" is very important. The even when it is not your turn applies to the threatened portion of the previous phrase in the sentence, not to the can make a melee attack portion. Stated other ways. "You threaten all squares into which you could make a melee attack if it were your turn. This threatened area exists even when it is not your turn."
Here is a fun little tool, Sentance diagrammer. Put "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." into it and see what it gives you.
When you are paralyzed you can not act when it is not your turn, therefore you do not threaten.
When you are paralyzed you also cannot attack even when it is your turn - this is why you do not threaten. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack".
When you are blind, you can act on your turn. However, you can not attack a person when it is not your turn. You can't even attack a person period.
Quite true. But you can attack a square a person is in when your blind. It says so directly in the rules under total concealment. You threaten squares, not individuals. If you only threaten people when you actually make an attack against them then there are all kinds of scenarios where a person might be in a flanking position but choose not to attack, and by your logic therefore not threaten.
If you are paralyzed you could still cast a Eschewed Material, Still, Silent Hold Person at someone. Where as you could not do this if you were blind.
Yes, you could cast a spell. Casting spells is not a melee attack. Threatening is based on squares you could make a melee attack in to. Threatening is not based upon squares you could cast a spell in to. I'm not sure if you believe paralyzed people can threaten, because I don't believe paralyzed people can threaten - yet you keep bringing it up. Paralyzed is a different condition then blind though. Paralyzed, you get no actions on your turn or otherwise that require any type of physical movement. Blind prevents you from targeting a person - it does not prevent you from attacking on your turn - and in circles we go, threatened is the state where if it were your turn, all squares into which you could make a melee attack on your turn are threatened by you. This threatened state of squares exists even when it is not your turn.
The condition of blind is really bad, and sure you might notice someone with a hearing perception checks to try and notice someone, but even if you notice or know someone is nearby you will never be sure where they are exactly.
Yes it is. Creatures or PC's with the ability to turn invisible have a massive advantage in a fight. Assuming opponents are even adjacent to each other the blind person has a 1 in 8 chance of randomly guessing the right square. They then have a 50% chance of missing out right. They have still have to hit the opponents AC. The invisible person isn't a mind reader though - he doesn't know where they are going to attack - or if they are even going to attack. If they are adjacent to him (and on opposite sides) he has to watch both of them at once just in case they both make lucky guesses and stab in his square. Without omnidirectional vision he can't keep an eye on both sides so his opponents get a +2 flanking bonus to hit (or you could say he gets a -2 to his AC). He cannot keep sufficient watch on both people at once to try and dodge any attack either of them makes at his normal capability.
The whole point of the giant analogy is the fact that if they or even just one of them attacked the right square by accident, then he would get a flanking bonus. Since, the consensus is that even though you are forbidden from attack someone, and can't attack except on your turn, you still threaten the square and provide a flanking bonus.
Yes, this is exactly how it works, for all the reasons I've given, all the rules I've sited, for all the plain and straight forward RAW text that has been shown.
This flanking bonus is applied to other people, even if they don't know you are there. So two people that can't see one another and are UNAWARE of each other, still give flanking bonuses to one another.
This is the edge case. I've already told you in this edge case scenario that as a GM I would rule against a flanking bonus here. Now try to refute the more common case that the rules apply to - the common case that the rules were written for - where only one person is blind.
Notice I said unaware, you can't go changing my example by stating that they might perceive one another. After all did you know they are all standing in widened silence zones?
And again I've pointed out how I would rule in your edge case, and again you need to understand how the common case works, and why it works, before you can make good decisions for edge cases. Your edge case isn't just a blind condition. Your edge case is blind and deafened, and no other form of sense perception to even let you know a combat is taking place. You are stacking together multiple penalties and acting as if these all fall under the blind condition singly.
The example might be contrived, but it illustrates the ridiculousness of allowing flanking bonuses and claiming someone threatens, when something clearly states you can't...
No it points out the "ridiculousness of allowing flanking bonuses" when you cannot see, hear, or in any other fashion determine someone is anywhere near you, to which I've readily agreed.
Show me the "ridiculousness of allowing flanking bonuses" when only the blind condition is in effect, but the combatants are aware there are enemies near them - can hear them, or smell them, or whatever. When the combatants know they are under attack and are fully aware that a combat is taking place. Because this is the common case when a blinded (or invisible) condition occurs. This is the scenario that was put to the question in the creation of this thread. This is the scenario I am addressing, even though I've indulged you in side scenarios with additional penalties in effect.
|
It amazes me that people tend to hit their heads at brick walls over and over again, expecting different results than when they did it before.
Necronus, if you threaten a square, you can provide flanking for your ally if positioned in the correct manner.
Attacks of Opportunity has nothing to do with that. Being blinded is a distinct disadvantage, but nothing you have proffered would indicate the loss of Flanking by either person.
You seem to be making things more complicated than what they actually are, adding house rules from the 3.5 era to apply within a structure that simply is not there.
If one can attack a square, then one threatens that square. Period. End of Statement.
Food for thought, neither the Grappled or Pinned conditions mention whether or not you threaten squares, only that you can't do Attacks of Opportunity... so RAW, a PINNED creature can still help flank if it has a bite attack? That's ridiculous.
It's also not true, since pinned creatures can't make attacks, and thus threaten no squares.
Doesn't say it can't attack whatsoever, just that they can't make Attacks of Opportunity. As we've already gone through in this thread, just because you can't make an AoO doesn't mean you can't threaten.As a GM, I would make the same call as you and say that they couldn't...
Show me where attack is listed as an option for a pinned creature:
A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
If it's not on that list, it's not an action a pinned creature can take.
|
|
If the creature is in the threatened square, then it is considered threatened. Not sure why you keep separating "person" from "square" as the difference isn't considered for the original question, which is can a blind person flank.
So if the opponent in question is not a person or creature (like a construct), what then?
It is shown in the posts above that you ignore that being threatened is when you are in a square that an opponent can attack. One is threatened, there may be some sort of an attack from a hostile source, the threat of harm is imminent, ill will is befallen...
You going into details that are simply not there, separating symatics for steadfast rules, a slip of the word for a particular nitpick, needling in exceptions where there are none...
The question was answered for the original poster, at least. Yes, blind person can provide and would himself provide flanking. The particulars of that seem to elude your grasp of understanding.
Edit...
Grappled/Pinned.
Being grappled is limiting, but as long as the person has a light weapon wielded he can make AoO's.
Pinned, on the other hand, only allows for mental and verbal actions, unless your trying to escape. (As pointed out above)
|
|
My conclusion was that threatening a square is a step in seeing if you can take an attack of opportunity against someone or something.
If you can't attack a person/creature per the rules of total concealment, and are forbidden from taking attacks of opportunity. You do not threaten them.
AoO has nothing to do with whether or not one threatens a square/creature.
See above posts about format and why the threaten rules are placed as they are.
Seems common place to state that a person can not threaten something they can not attack... doesn't this sound correct?
Indeed. You seem lost, however, on timing and conditions. If one can attack the square/creature on his turn, he threatens that square for the whole round, not just on his turn. Remember this, a round consists of everyone doing something at the same time. The conditions when someone does not threaten the squares around him is Helpless, Pinned, Stunned, wielding a ranged weapon/no weapon, has the reach of 0, and so on. Blind is not included in that.
The debate is because people have come to their own conclusions, using their own interpretations.
It is you that have come up with your own interpretations. You keep banging your head against the wall.
|
|
"There are no rules for threatening a creature."
Confused here. Are you saying because there are no rules for this that being threatened is ignored? Or are you trying to infer that because a particular passage used "creature" instead of "square" in it's explanation that it throws out any other rule that uses it?
AoO doesn't care what is in the square. It only is concerned with if it is threatened or not. If the target moves out of the threatened square, drinks a potion in the threatened square, or anything else that would provoke, then the creature that is threatening the target gets that AoO.
It is being blind that prevents a creature from doing an AoO when this happens, not whether or not he threatens the target. Treating others as being in Total Concealment is a part of being blind, not a quantifier for Threatening a square.
Still wondering if a Construct is still considered a "creature" in your mind.
Bang that head, the wall isn't getting any softer.
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).
Question: what do people believe the bolded section means?
Personally, I can't think of any interpretation other than: Generally, that means you threaten everything in all squares adjacent to your space
That seems to me the place where it is defined what it means to threaten a creature.
If you generally threaten everything in the squares you threaten, a creature can be said to be threatened by you if it's in a square you threaten.
I now know where "Order of the Stick" gets so much of their awesome material...they read the forums :)
Nowhere in Blinded does it say anything about NOT threatening, nowhere in concealment does is say anything about NOT threatening
A creature is "threatened" if they are in a threatened square.
I don't see why anyone is even bringing AoOs into this argument, when they have nothing to do with flanking, just because "threatened squares" is under "Attacks of Opportunity" in the rules doesn't mean that is the only time that threatening matters, its just where you find the rules
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
So how do we see if someone is threatened?
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.
Bold 1: This tells you what you threaten, PERIOD
Bold 2: This is in here because certain times you do not threaten those area, as in you are using a reach weapon
Bold 3: This is giving you an example of when you don't threaten, THEN that means no AoO, not the other way around
If someone is blinded, do they still threaten squares? YES, they can still make attacks into any squares, so threaten them. That's it...thats as far as the argument needs to go.
|*||T||*| T=friendly
|*||C||*| C=enemy
|A||X||B| A=friendly X=enemy B=friendly
'A' is blind, but he still threatens 'X' and 'C' because he can attack those squares, so he provides flanking for 'B', but does not for 'T'
IF 'A' chose to attack the square 'X' is in on his turn, after he rolled miss chance, he would get the +2 to his attack roll because 'B' provides flanking also
They do not need to add rules for threatening creatures because its EASIER to say they threaten the square, meaning anything in the square is threatened
And also...dragons
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Question: what do people believe the bolded section means?
Personally, I can't think of any interpretation other than: Generally, that means you threaten everything in all squares adjacent to your space
That seems to me the place where it is defined what it means to threaten a creature.
If you generally threaten everything in the squares you threaten, a creature can be said to be threatened by you if it's in a square you threaten.
Haha, nice catch Forseti. I've been so focused on trying to explain why total concealment has no application to threatening, why AoO and threaten are not synonymous, and how trying to make them so breaks all kinds of things in the game that I totally missed that one word 'everything'. There can't really be any other interpretation of what 'everything' refers to. It should be noted that 'everything' in this case would apply to creatures (defenders), walls, inanimate objects, the stagnant air in that space, etc. Everything is everything. If any of those things, be it a creature, a statue, or other object takes a distracting action it provokes an AoO (of course inanimate objects never take distracting actions, so that is a moot point where they are concerned).
Guess, I should point out again for the second and last time, the use of generally implies that it is not always the case.
And when you find things that specifically trump that generally, you'll start to get somewhere.
As it is, blinded doesn't say that.
That's an insult to ignorant hicks sir...I take offense to that