Drakkiel: no where does it say that "A creature is "threatened" if they are in a threatened square."
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).
A creature in a square is a subset of everything in a square.
In my world, not being able to attack a creature.
Means you can't threaten a creature.
Since you can only threaten things you can attack.
The concept of flanking while blind, is broken and overpowered and doesn't follow any reason or logic.
Disregard the fact that you can't attack a creature on your turn or when it isn't your turn, when you are blind.
That was rather disjointed.
In your world, rule however you want.
In the rules forum, it's about what the rules say.
The rules say if you can attack into a square, you threaten it, even when it isn't your turn.
The rules say that when you threaten the square, you threaten everything in the square (that includes creatures) unless there's a specific exception.
Being blinded does not prevent you from attacking into a square, so it doesn't stop you from threatening the square, so it doesn't stop you from threatening everything inside the square (including creatures).
If you don't like threatening while blind, you can house rule it away in your own game. That's rule zero. But it is a house rule, not RAW.
After reading this thread I am now more confused about how flanking works than ever. And I've been playing d20 for over 10 years.
After reading this thread I am now more confused about how flanking works than ever. And I've been playing d20 for over 10 years.
Guess that depends on how you thought flanking worked.
It's actually really simple: If an opponent has two enemies on opposite sides of him, and the enemies are able to make attacks into any square the opponent occupies (with some minor exceptions for cases like unarmed attacks without the improved unarmed attacks feat), then the opponent is flanked.
I'm not aware of any rule, feat, condition, or other situation that removes this beyond what is already described in what it takes to threaten (e.g, you must be able to attack into the square). There are several that add additional flanking bonuses though.
The rules say if you can attack into a square, you threaten it, even when it isn't your turn.
The rules say that when you threaten the square, you threaten everything in the square (that includes creatures) unless there's a specific exception.
Being blinded does not prevent you from attacking into a square, so it doesn't stop you from threatening the square, so it doesn't stop you from threatening everything inside the square (including creatures)
I would add to this that by attacking the square you get a 50% chance to attack the creature in the square. There is your threat, using the word outside of game rules meaning, necronus. If it wasn't for that then more of us might be inclined to agree with you on the lack of logic point.
|
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".
I think I've seen a case or two of this not being true. Let's quote the pertinent rules before I toss out the examples though.
"Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through."
Seems pertinent especially in regards to:
Show me where attack is listed as an option for a pinned creature:
If it's not on that list, it's not an action a pinned creature can take.
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.
Purely mental actions, eh? Paralyzed referenced Helpless so let's see if there is anything there that stops purely mental actions...
"Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
"As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.
"Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace."
Nope... No where in that text (much like blindness and total concealment) does it specify a loss of a characters ability to threaten. A paralyzed Kyton can still attack with it's chains (per it's purely mental supernatural ability). A paralyzed monk with fly can take a mental action to orient his head, leg, or fist toward someone and fly at them as an attack. A 20th level inquisitor can still use True Judgement to attack once. In each of these examples, threatening makes as much sense, despite their paralysis, as a blind and deaf character threatening.
After reading this thread I am now more confused about how flanking works than ever. And I've been playing d20 for over 10 years.Guess that depends on how you thought flanking worked.
It's actually really simple: If an opponent has two enemies on opposite sides of him, and the enemies are able to make attacks into any square the opponent occupies (with some minor exceptions for cases like unarmed attacks without the improved unarmed attacks feat), then the opponent is flanked.
I'm not aware of any rule, feat, condition, or other situation that removes this beyond what is already described in what it takes to threaten (e.g, you must be able to attack into the square). There are several that add additional flanking bonuses though.
It certainly makes more sense than flooding the ethereal plane with a bunch of orcs to follow and threaten the adventurers during combats, just to grant the adventurer's enemies a +2 flanking bonus (and sneak attack fun). The orcs can still be in the square next to the adventurers and attack the square in which the adventurers are in... So they threaten them right? That's all threatening takes right? So despite the fact they can't attack the adventurers, they can be used to setup flanks on the adventurers because they can attack the squares they are in?
I'm really hoping this strategy does not become the next swarm or haunt... But why not have every rogue friend a few phase spiders and teach them how to setup flanks for the rogue?
A blind person is as much of a threat as a person that can see.
I don't think anyone is saying that. Flanking isn't scaled by HOW much of a threat you are, just that you are one. Whether the ally on the other side is a commoner with a club or a 20th level fighter, you still only get a + 2 (barring special feats).
You threaten everything within reach, even when you can't see or are unaware there is anything there.
As far as the unaware part I would agree that is broken if RAW that is what happens, such as some of the examples given earlier. But that doesn't invalidate the general rules on threatened squares which DO seem to be supported by logic when the blind creature is aware of opponents around it.
It's looking into these fringe cases that would be a more useful course for this board to go, than us all continuing to debate what a threatened creature is. Those fringe cases may be ones where the word "generally" matters. Also, for hypothetical situations involving creatures unaware of each other, should we perhaps be looking into surprise rules?
Nope... No where in that text (much like blindness and total concealment) does it specify a loss of a characters ability to threaten. A paralyzed Kyton can still attack with it's chains (per it's purely mental supernatural ability). A paralyzed monk with fly can take a mental action to orient his head, leg, or fist toward someone and fly at them as an attack. A 20th level inquisitor can still use True Judgement to attack once. In each of these examples, threatening makes as much sense, despite their paralysis, as a blind and deaf character threatening.
A paralyzed creature is limited to purely mental actions. This means it can't make melee attacks into adjacent squares and therefore can't threaten them. At least in all but the cornermost of cases.
Even the ones you brought up as examples don't work.
Nothing in the fly ability says you can use it to turn your character into a mentally powered battering ram, it lets you fly, not all that other stuff.
The inquisitor's true judgement requires making a melee attack against the target.
Nothing in the Kyton's description saus the control over his chains is purely mental. It requires a standard action. The paralyzed condition says you can't act. So unless the supernatural ability is called out as purely mental, no dice.
The orcs can still be in the square next to the adventurers and attack the square in which the adventurers are in... So they threaten them right? That's all threatening takes right? So despite the fact they can't attack the adventurers, they can be used to setup flanks on the adventurers because they can attack the squares they are in?and
So they can free action to appear in the material, standard action bite, and move action shift and move up to there speed to create flanks, even though they are in the ethereal plane, they as per the rules everyone has stated still threaten.
No, unless the creatures on the Ethereal Plane can attack the square on the Material Plane then they wouldn't threaten it. Sure they are attacking the square that overlaps on the Ethereal Plane, but that's not the same. I suspect you both really know that.
|
|
Thrikreed, ethereal flanking. That's pretty amazing.
Ethereal Jaunt (Su) A phase spider can shift from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane as a free action, and shift back again as a move action (or as part of a move action). The ability is otherwise identical to ethereal jaunt (CL 15th).
So they can free action to appear in the material, standard action bite, and move action shift and move up to there speed to create flanks, even though they are in the ethereal plane, they as per the rules everyone has stated still threaten.
Phase spiders weren't as interesting as flooding the ethereal plane with hoards of undead (so they don't eat or drink, or die of old age). Orc skeletons or vampire spawn could easily saturate a local and keep the adventurers threatened for that +2 flanking bonus and sneak attack fun. Getting them to the ethereal plane would be difficult but what are evil clerics for?
I mentioned the Phase Spiders because with the young template they become CR 4 and are still medium creatures; making them easily inclusive at most levels... And reasonable transportation for the hoards of undead minions to the ethereal plane.
And this has devolved into making flawed absurd examples to try and invalidate what the rules appear to say.
|
|
No, unless the creatures on the Ethereal Plane can attack the square on the Material Plane then they wouldn't threaten it. Sure they are attacking the square that overlaps on the Ethereal Plane, but that's not the same. I suspect you both really know that.
I do... but since my understanding of the majority of the arguments on the opposition's side boils down to... "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." They have been very explicit and repetitive in stating that is all it takes, and thus whether or not you are capable of attacking the creature in that square is irrelevant as is the ability to damage it.
As to it being different squares...
Ethereal
An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed. An ethereal creature can move through solid objects, including living creatures. An ethereal creature can see and hear on the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and ephemeral. Sight and hearing onto the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.
Force effects and abjurations affect an ethereal creature normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can't attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.
An ethereal creature treats other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material.
No where in this does this say they occupy different squares, while it does provide examples of moving through solid objects and being effected by force effects and abjurations which are tied to specific squares.
Another example of the opposition's argument is Shadows... an unarmed combatant without Improved Unarmed Strike feat and no magic is able to threaten an incorporeal undead creature. Facts like undead not taking damage from non-lethal damage and incorporeal being "immune to all nonmagical attack forms" are completely ignored by their arguments.
Yay, for threatened squares.
|
|
Nope... No where in that text (much like blindness and total concealment) does it specify a loss of a characters ability to threaten. A paralyzed Kyton can still attack with it's chains (per it's purely mental supernatural ability). A paralyzed monk with fly can take a mental action to orient his head, leg, or fist toward someone and fly at them as an attack. A 20th level inquisitor can still use True Judgement to attack once. In each of these examples, threatening makes as much sense, despite their paralysis, as a blind and deaf character threatening.A paralyzed creature is limited to purely mental actions. This means it can't make melee attacks into adjacent squares and therefore can't threaten them. At least in all but the cornermost of cases.
Even the ones you brought up as examples don't work.
Nothing in the fly ability says you can use it to turn your character into a mentally powered battering ram, it lets you fly, not all that other stuff.
The inquisitor's true judgement requires making a melee attack against the target.
Nothing in the Kyton's description saus the control over his chains is purely mental. It requires a standard action. The paralyzed condition says you can't act. So unless the supernatural ability is called out as purely mental, no dice.
If you want to take the stance that those are not purely mental actions (regardless of being standard, swift, full round, or move actions), please feel free to cite your sources.
If you want to take the stance that those are not purely mental actions (regardless of being standard, swift, full round, or move actions), please feel free to cite your sources.Nope... No where in that text (much like blindness and total concealment) does it specify a loss of a characters ability to threaten. A paralyzed Kyton can still attack with it's chains (per it's purely mental supernatural ability). A paralyzed monk with fly can take a mental action to orient his head, leg, or fist toward someone and fly at them as an attack. A 20th level inquisitor can still use True Judgement to attack once. In each of these examples, threatening makes as much sense, despite their paralysis, as a blind and deaf character threatening.A paralyzed creature is limited to purely mental actions. This means it can't make melee attacks into adjacent squares and therefore can't threaten them. At least in all but the cornermost of cases.
Even the ones you brought up as examples don't work.
Nothing in the fly ability says you can use it to turn your character into a mentally powered battering ram, it lets you fly, not all that other stuff.
The inquisitor's true judgement requires making a melee attack against the target.
Nothing in the Kyton's description saus the control over his chains is purely mental. It requires a standard action. The paralyzed condition says you can't act. So unless the supernatural ability is called out as purely mental, no dice.
You want me to cite a source that True Judgment requiring making a single melee attack against a target is not a purely mental action?
Come off it.
Being able to affect someone has no barring on threatening someone, as so stated by most everyone on this board.
Where was this stated? Seems to me what people are saying that if you can directly attack into square, with a melee weapon (which rules out an unarmed combatant and many types of "attacks") then you threaten everything in it.
I do believe that True Judgment (Su): At 20th level, an inquisitor can call true judgment down upon a foe during combat. Whenever an inquisitor uses her judgment ability, the inquisitor can invoke true judgment on a foe as a swift action. Once declared, the inquisitor can make a single melee (or ranged attack, if the foe is within 30 feet) against the target. If the attack hits, it deals damage normally and the target must make a Fortitude save or die. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the inquisitor's level + the inquisitor's Wisdom modifier. Regardless of whether or not the save is made, the target creature is immune to the inquisitor's true judgment ability for 24 hours. Once this ability has been used, it cannot be used again for 1d4 rounds.
This states that it is a pure mental action, which grants a melee attack. So when they activate this power the magic would give them the ability to make a single attack.
This is complete nonsense. Just because an ability allows you to do something, that doesn't mean you can ignore circumstances that prevent you from doing that something.
You can use the supernatural ability, and having used that, you are granted the ability to make a melee attack that has some effect. Once you've bestowed yourself the use of this special attack through successful use of the supernatural ability, it works the same as any other ability that allows you to make a special attack that has some effect, including the possibility of being barred from making it because of circumstances.
In regards to the Ethereal Plane
Ethereal Plane: The Ethereal Plane is a ghostly realm that exists as a buffer between the Material Plane and the Shadow Plane, overlapping each. A traveler in the Ethereal plane experiences the real world as if the world were an insubstantial ghost, and can move through solid objects without being seen in the real world. Strange creatures dwell in the Ethereal Plane, as well as ghosts and dreams, many of which can sometimes extend their influence into the real world in mysterious and terrifying ways. Powerful spellcasters utilize the Ethereal Plane with spells like blink, etherealness, and ethereal jaunt.
No where in this does this say they occupy different squares, while it does provide examples of moving through solid objects and being effected by force effects and abjurations which are tied to specific squares.
And no where does it say they do exist in the same square. It does refer to the planes as being different planes and worlds that overlap and creatures traveling back and forth between them. Similar to the shadow plane.
So we can look at it as each plane having a square that overlaps with ones on the other plane and ethereal creatures existing and interacting in multiple, but in a different way. In this case they generally couldn't attack into the square on Material plane with a melee weapon at all and thus wouldn't threaten.
Or we can look at it as a square is literally the same square on the ethereal, shadow and material at the same time.
One interpretation leads to ridiculous results. Of course we can go back and forth about which one to use and likely get nowhere, that's certainly not what I am trying to get at. Because even if we use the one you suggest then so what? Are you saying that if an interpretation of a rule can possibly lead to an absurd result then it invalidates that base interpretation? Or do you use the base interpretation that seems the best supported by RAW or RAI and then deal with the ridiculous fringe cases as they come?
This thread is becoming more than absurd.
I'll repeat myself from above
"Because even if we use the one you suggest(which you apparently did even though you quoted the other interpretation) then so what? Are you saying that if an interpretation of a rule can possibly lead to an absurd result then it invalidates that base interpretation? Or do you use the base interpretation that seems the best supported by RAW or RAI and then deal with the ridiculous fringe cases as they come?"
Because if we can't get back to something along this vein vs. "I found way that interpretation doesn't make sense, thus I win" then I agree with
This thread is becoming more than absurd.
Because every interpretation or rule can lead to something absurd if you try hard enough. I'm done for now.
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).
According to this, and how the ethereal plane works; You have all stated very clearly and forcefully that the only requirement to threaten is to have the ability to attack a square.
They can attack the square, therefore they threaten.
But can they attack the square? They're on a different plane.
They are two 'overlapping' planes, which means that for every place on the one plane, there's a corresponding place on the other plane.
Being able to attack into a square on the plane you're on, doesn't automatically mean you can attack into the corresponding square on the other plane.
Broken Arrow, I don't think you will get anywhere.
I thought there were some good points brought up earlier, including by you necronus, that could be explored, such as a RAW way to resolve the flankers and/or those being flanked not perceiving each other issue. However I don't think this thread will go anywhere productive at this point and I am sorry to everyone for my part in extending it. Since the original poster, Millefune, is satisfied, I suggest bringing up any of these question as new threads. I promise to stop feeding the Ethereal Trolls as this thread needs to die.
|
|
In regards to the Ethereal Plane
Ethereal Plane: The Ethereal Plane is a ghostly realm that exists as a buffer between the Material Plane and the Shadow Plane, overlapping each. A traveler in the Ethereal plane experiences the real world as if the world were an insubstantial ghost, and can move through solid objects without being seen in the real world. Strange creatures dwell in the Ethereal Plane, as well as ghosts and dreams, many of which can sometimes extend their influence into the real world in mysterious and terrifying ways. Powerful spellcasters utilize the Ethereal Plane with spells like blink, etherealness, and ethereal jaunt.No where in this does this say they occupy different squares, while it does provide examples of moving through solid objects and being effected by force effects and abjurations which are tied to specific squares.And no where does it say they do exist in the same square. It does refer to the planes as being different planes and worlds that overlap and creatures traveling back and forth between them. Similar to the shadow plane.
So we can look at it as each plane having a square that overlaps with ones on the other plane and ethereal creatures existing and interacting in multiple, but in a different way. In this case they generally couldn't attack into the square on Material plane with a melee weapon at all and thus wouldn't threaten.
No where in raw does it say the two planes of existence (ethereal and material) should be treated as separate... But if you're going to argue that they do... Remember that the next time an abjuration or force effect (like wall of force) is cast, and squares referenced in the effect ("Effect wall whose area is up to one 10-ft. square/level") is counted off. Don't forget blade barrier's effect "Effect wall of whirling blades up to 20 ft. long/level, or a ringed wall of whirling blades with a radius of up to 5 ft. per two levels; either form is 20 ft. high"
It would help explain the huge effects of arcane lock, mage's sanctum, and guards and wards though.
Of course, then you have all the abjuration and force effects that are a radius from you... How does the ethereal having different squares effect the abjuration and force effects that are a radius from you? How many feet tick off to effect the ethereal plane?
When you're talking about effects that specifically state that they affect the ethereal plane, they obviously just do because they say so, just like every other rule just works because it says so.
|
|
I've just read this thread in it's entirety and have come to this conclusion;Your blind belief that you are right is threatening my sanity square :P
WRT the phase spider... surely you can only threaten squares you can immediately attack not use a free action and attack or a move action and attack otherwise you add a whole level of broken.
A blind creature cannot immediately attack.
"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."
Technically everything in adjacent squares including unattended objects should have total concealment from a blind person.
"You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
If I were blind and I attack a square with two creatures grappling under a table, 6 unattended objects, a torch in a wall sconce, and a swarm... How do I determine what is hit? Can I hit multiple objects and creatures in the square? Is this stating being blind makes all my melee attacks AoEs? Sweet!
|
|
When you're talking about effects that specifically state that they affect the ethereal plane, they obviously just do because they say so, just like every other rule just works because it says so.
Ah, glad to hear you agreeing with ethereal and material planes using the same squares. That would be my interpretation of RAW as well, but then ethereal creatures can threaten squares shared with the material plane...
And if not, I'd say the problem is with the current threads idea that creatures threaten everything in squares in which they can make melee attacks. Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning. So are now you agreeing with that too?
If your answer is no, then why the double standard?
This thread might actually prove to have something useful come out of it, thrikreed and necronus have uncovered a loop hole in the rules regarding threatening.
Pure RAW, ethereal creatures both threaten and are threatened by creatures in the material plane.
The ethereal plane is coexistant with the material plane - which by the common definition is "Exist at the same time or in the same place." The ethereal plane does both, existing in the same time and place as the material plane.
Intuitively everyone in this thread actually understands that is not how it should work for the ethereal to material plane. Intuitively everyone understands that ethereal creatures cannot effect creatures on the material plane (either through attacking or casting spells) - they must first move to the material plane to do so. The reverse isn't always true as force effects originating on the material plane hit both planes.
Everyone here also (I hope) realizes that a blind persons sword can still draw blood on the material plane. An ethereal persons blade cannot.
The difference of course between being blind/or an invisible creature vs being ethereal is that ethereal also adds the 'insubstantial' condition to the creature.
The state of being insubstantial is not defined anywhere in the rules that I could find (if someone has a rules reference for this please point it out). The common definition doesn't give us any idea how this effects game play other than by intuition/logic - which as we've seen can vary wildly person to person, breaking it down to mere opinion.
Many think of incorporeal and insubstantial as the same thing, but they are not, paizo specifically changed this, but failed to define insubstantial Older thread discussing this
The, dare I say "obvious", way to fix this is not to make a backwards track through ethereal granting invisibility, thus invisibility prevents threatening, thus blindness prevents threatening - because ethereal is more than just invisible is the reason it shouldn't threaten - but rather to define insubstantial to be what we all intuitively know it to be - and include it in verbage that dictates insubstantial creatures cannot threaten or be threatened (maybe). Off the top of my head I'm not sure if there are any creatures that are naturally insubstantial (there are a number of them that are incorporeal, which already works fine with existing rules).
Then an exception to that case would be if such a creature has a force weapon than foes are treated as substantial. This still isn't quite perfect for creatures on the ethereal plane as even force effects originating on the ethereal plane do not cross to the material - but this should sufficiently describe the gist of where this is going.
|
|
This thread might actually prove to have something useful come out of it, thrikreed and necronus have uncovered a loop hole in the rules regarding threatening.
Pure RAW, ethereal creatures both threaten and are threatened by creatures in the material plane.
The ethereal plane is coexistant with the material plane - which by the common definition is "Exist at the same time or in the same place." The ethereal plane does both, existing in the same time and place as the material plane.
Intuitively everyone in this thread actually understands that is not how it should work for the ethereal to material plane. Intuitively everyone understands that ethereal creatures cannot effect creatures on the material plane (either through attacking or casting spells) - they must first move to the material plane to do so. The reverse isn't always true as force effects originating on the material plane hit both planes.
Everyone here also (I hope) realizes that a blind persons sword can still draw blood on the material plane. An ethereal persons blade cannot.
The difference of course between being blind/or an invisible creature vs being ethereal is that ethereal also adds the 'insubstantial' condition to the creature.
So, in essence, you're saying that not only do you have to threaten the square but also have the ability effect the defender. In which case an incorporeal creature cannot be threatened by two creatures lacking magic because they lack the ability to to effect the defending incorporeal creature.
So how are you going to rule creatures with DR 15/adamantine? Can they only be threatened by creatures that can deal 16 damage without adamantine weapons? Does the creature lacking a way to penetrate the DR have to deal damage before the defender acts threatened? For instance a character that deals 1d6+10 damage might swing 20 times before rolling that 6.
I've posted a thread for FAQ'ing to at least get a definition of what insubstantial means for those interested in it (I'm hoping the discussion here doesn't merely spread to that thread though, this discussion should remain here).
As your latest questions thrikeed:
Incorporeal is not the same as insubstantial - problems with it should be addressed separately. As an aside, incorporeal doesn't guarantee invisible, and doesn't fall under your can't threaten an invisible creature umbrella.
DR I don't see as a factor. The potential to cause harm is really what is at the root of threatening. The DR 15 creature doesn't know the peasant with a 3 strength can't actually hurt it without metagaming. In the metagame world everyone knows the peasant is incapable of hurting it - but in the 'realism' world there is no certainty of that. There is a difference between possibility of causing harm (however small and slim that chance might be) and virtually no possibility of causing harm (which insubstantial would dictate). This would be the same way I'd address incorporeal - incorporeal creatures have to metagame to know they aren't going to be hurt and so can safely ignore the peasant.
I've already addressed several of your edge case, absurd, or silly examples. I have no reason to indulge you further in this.
You have yet to show me by RAW and logic how your view stands up - the best you can do is reference aforementioned edge cases, absurd, and silly examples. When you can present a general purpose RAW/logic case I'll continue the discussion with you.
|
|
As your latest questions thrikeed:
Incorporeal is not the same as insubstantial - problems with it should be addressed separately. As an aside, incorporeal doesn't guarantee invisible, and doesn't fall under your can't threaten an invisible creature umbrella.
It is very pertinent because figuring out how 'threaten' works for invisible creatures requires a very clear understanding of how 'threaten' works.
DR I don't see as a factor. The potential to cause harm is really what is at the root of threatening. The DR 15 creature doesn't know the peasant with a 3 strength can't actually hurt it without metagaming. In the metagame world everyone knows the peasant is incapable of hurting it - but in the 'realism' world there is no certainty of that. There is a difference between possibility of causing harm (however small and slim that chance might be) and virtually no possibility of causing harm (which insubstantial would dictate). This would be the same way I'd address incorporeal - incorporeal creatures have to metagame to know they aren't going to be hurt and so can safely ignore the peasant.
How many times would a creature with DR 15/adamantine need to get hit but remain undamaged by a peasant with a sap or pitchfork, or by wolves, or by horses; before it stops considering them a threat? Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times? A million times?
Are you saying a creature with DR 15/adamantine and a 30 int and wis is never going to learn a pitch fork or wolves teeth aren't going to hurt it EVER and go on assuming that every plain old wolf met could be the one that kills it? And you find that realistic? I suppose you find squirrels causing truck drivers to swerve into other lanes of traffic for fear of damage to their trucks reasonable too?
*** I really feel guilty about the poor squirrels used in the example. ***
As your latest questions thrikeed:
Incorporeal is not the same as insubstantial - problems with it should be addressed separately. As an aside, incorporeal doesn't guarantee invisible, and doesn't fall under your can't threaten an invisible creature umbrella.
It is very pertinent because figuring out how 'threaten' works for invisible creatures requires a very clear understanding of how 'threaten' works.
Incorporeal does not grant invisibility - so it has no bearing on it in that sense. If a creature is incorporeal AND invisible, then you need to understand how both work together and how that effects things like threatening, etc.
DR I don't see as a factor. The potential to cause harm is really what is at the root of threatening. The DR 15 creature doesn't know the peasant with a 3 strength can't actually hurt it without metagaming. In the metagame world everyone knows the peasant is incapable of hurting it - but in the 'realism' world there is no certainty of that. There is a difference between possibility of causing harm (however small and slim that chance might be) and virtually no possibility of causing harm (which insubstantial would dictate). This would be the same way I'd address incorporeal - incorporeal creatures have to metagame to know they aren't going to be hurt and so can safely ignore the peasant.How many times would a creature with DR 15/adamantine need to get hit but remain undamaged by a peasant with a sap or pitchfork, or by wolves, or by horses; before it stops considering them a threat? Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times? A million times?
Are you saying a creature with DR 15/adamantine and a 30 int and wis is never going to learn a pitch fork or wolves teeth aren't going to hurt it EVER and go on assuming that every plain old wolf met could be the one that kills it? And you find that realistic? I suppose you find squirrels causing truck drivers to swerve into other lanes of traffic for fear of damage to their trucks reasonable too?
*** I really feel guilty about the poor squirrels used in the example. ***
The rules do not cover forms of adaptive AI. Given the varied nature of strange and magical and other unexplainable phenomena that can occur in a fantasy world creatures might take an approach of better safe then sorry. Those squirrels might be second cousins to the rabbit from the holy grail - truckers beware. Neither of our arguments on this particular point though has any standing in the rules.
@necronus, my opinion is backed up by the written rules.
Your opinion is based on, "I don't think it should work that way".
Show me the RAW that says blind prevents threatening. Show me the RAW that says blind prevents a creature from making attacks. Show me the RAW that says AoO and threatening are one and the same. Show me the RAW that says blind makes creatures completely oblivious of another presence. Show me any RAW that makes threatening not work the way it is stated (not as an exception to threatening, but something that actually states the RAW on threatening is actually wrong and it works like this instead).
All you have to do is come up with ONE case and your opinion will then have a foundation in the rules.
|
|
Exceptions that prove or disprove rules (no matter your opinion of silliness) is an incredibly valuable tool logically. The presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. A good example would be:I've already addressed several of your edge case, absurd, or silly examples. I have no reason to indulge you further in this.
You have yet to show me by RAW and logic how your view stands up - the best you can do is reference aforementioned edge cases, absurd, and silly examples. When you can present a general purpose RAW/logic case I'll continue the discussion with you.
a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
In many of the examples being stated, like ethereal or DR we are proving that there is an unwritten component to threaten that implies you also have to be able to effect the target...
Then once that has been firmly established in everyone's mind we can go back to previous parts of the discussion and look at the repercussions.
Whether or not this is logical enough for you, in your opinion, is up to you. In my opinion, it is enough to proceed.
...unwritten component to threaten that implies you also have to be able to effect the target...
You mean for example, can the blind guys weapon still kill someone? You may now proceed with extrapolating from that reference point.
Perhaps a definition of what you think threatened means might help (in the common sense of the word, not the game defined term).
For me, threatened:
In danger of or at risk of being harmed.
Blind people can obviously be threatening, in the real world as well as the game.
Deep Purple has known that and shared the knowledge with us as early as the 1970s, so there's really no excuse for ignorance on the matter.
See the blind man, he's shooting at the world
Bullets flying, ooh taking toll
If you've been bad - Oh Lord I bet you have
And you've not been hit oh by flying lead
You'd better close your eyes, you'd better bow your head
Wait for the ricochet
A blind man's threat is more a threat of falling victim to misfortune than a threat of falling victim to his skills, but it's a threat nonetheless.
(I'm sorry, I just had to slip in those lyrics at some point. :P)