The new Tactical Reposition feat allows a target to be repositioned into a 'trap or other hazardous area', such as a pit. Do y'all see any issues RAW with repositioning a foe into the air with this feat?
If the air is someway hazardous I don't see a reason not to. The rules and feats, unless specifically saying so, don't discriminate 3d fights with 2d fights.
Grizzly the Archer wrote: If the air is someway hazardous I don't see a reason not to. The rules and feats, unless specifically saying so, don't discriminate 3d fights with 2d fights. I think one would assume any creature that cannot fly would consider open air as hazardous, since a fall would result from a sudden reposition up.
evilaustintom wrote: Grizzly the Archer wrote: If the air is someway hazardous I don't see a reason not to. The rules and feats, unless specifically saying so, don't discriminate 3d fights with 2d fights. I think one would assume any creature that cannot fly would consider open air as hazardous, since a fall would result from a sudden reposition up. Open air is not 'hazardous terrain.' But more importantly, reposition says "A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location." So if the creature has flight, sure, you can force him to move up even without the feat. Otherwise, no.
Vestrial wrote: evilaustintom wrote: Grizzly the Archer wrote: If the air is someway hazardous I don't see a reason not to. The rules and feats, unless specifically saying so, don't discriminate 3d fights with 2d fights. I think one would assume any creature that cannot fly would consider open air as hazardous, since a fall would result from a sudden reposition up. Open air is not 'hazardous terrain.' But more importantly, reposition says "A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location." So if the creature has flight, sure, you can force him to move up even without the feat. Otherwise, no. I'm not seeing where you are drawing your conclusion of 'no'. The feat clearly allows you to use reposition to move someone into a space where they will fall (a pit). How us that different than a fall from a cliff, off a bridge, side of a building...just about any kind of fall? That brings be to the question of just plain 'up'. In midair seems to all be the same, in the grand scheme of things, using this feat to fling someone straight up would probably only get use if you get them up 10' or higher (requiring beating the CMD by an extra +5).
A bit of a necro here, but I'm wondering this as well.
Also, a question: could I reposition someone into a trap? Like a pressure plate or somesuch that I (or possibly, my character) don't know it's there without tactical reposition?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"A reposition attempts to force a foe to move..."
You're not actually grabbing them and physically moving them to a new spot; you're threatening him by waving your sword, slashing at his ankles, making him move himself to avoid your provocation. That's why you can't reposition someone into dangerous terrain by default; they'd rather risk a sword blow than step off a cliff. But Tactical Reposition gives you the leeway to reposition them in such a manner that they're unaware of the entire risk. You guide them in such a manner that they aren't fully aware of how close they are to the cliff until they've stepped off. Same goes for a trap, pressure plate, or similar situation.
So you can't reposition a stunned/pinned foe? So you CAN reposition someone into a trap if they don't know it's there?
The rules don't grant that leeway so it's just a technicality. They don't "know" the trap is there, but they can figure out that you're guiding them towards "something" that they don't want to step into. And yes, since you are getting the foe to move, if they are unable to move, they wouldn't be subject to it. You could, however, drag or bullrush them if you actually want to move them around yourself. Essentially, if they're lying there unconscious, you can swing your weapon at their legs all day long, succeeding on all the maneuver rolls (and you probably will due to the bonuses to your attack and penalties to their AC from being helpless), but the success doesn't provoke any appreciable result.
While I don't think your interpretation is bad, I also don't think it is supported by the rules. For comparison, combat maneuvers always list the stuff they are incapable of doing (trip lists that it can't be used on oozes/flying creatures/etc, drag and reposition lists moving into obstacles and occupied squares). Reposition does not say that the target has to be capable of moving.
Also, I think this heavily implies that Reposition is forceful movement like drag and trip, not just somehow goading/feinting a foe into moving aside.
Quote: There is a special exception to the above rules. If you’re using a weapon with the trip special feature, and you’re attempting a drag or reposition combat maneuver (Advanced Player’s Guide 321–322), you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll because trip weapons are also suitable for dragging and repositioning (this also means we don’t have to add “drag” and “reposition” weapon properties to existing weapons).
LoneKnave wrote: Reposition does not say that the target has to be capable of moving. It doesn't say explicitly that the subject must be capable of moving. It does say, however, that it forces them to move. That carries the implication that you are compelling them to move by some means. Furthermore, since the last square of movement can be to a non-adjacent square, you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them; and that's already covered under Bull Rush. So the only remaining logical conclusion is that you are goading them to move themselves; which requires that they be capable of performing said movement. So it does say that the target must be capable of moving in the same way that Bleeding Attack says that the target must possess blood or something equivalent; implicitly rather than explicitly.
LoneKnave wrote: So you CAN reposition someone into a trap if they don't know it's there? This is how I play that.
Both parties aware - Requires Tactical Reposition
Either party aware - Requires Tactical Reposition
Neither party aware - No requirement.
In this situation I believe perception is everything. It's obvious that if your opponent knows about the trap all effort will be made to avoid it. When you know and the opponent does not, consider that you're not being subtle enough to prevent the enemy from guessing that's a worse spot than any other. Since you cannot bluff as part of a Reposition action you there's no room to argue about being more deceptive. Last, if neither you nor the opponent is aware then it's anybody's game who sets the trap off.
That's just how I do it, because it stops the crazy.
Kazaan wrote: LoneKnave wrote: Reposition does not say that the target has to be capable of moving. It doesn't say explicitly that the subject must be capable of moving. It does say, however, that it forces them to move. That carries the implication that you are compelling them to move by some means. And the fact that Trip weapons give bonuses to reposition, as well as reposition CMB and CMD being STR based, there being no CHA or Bluff replacements for reposition, etc; all imply that it's actually physically moving your opponent.
Kazaan wrote: Furthermore, since the last square of movement can be to a non-adjacent square, you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them; and that's already covered under Bull Rush. you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them;
Here you are LITERALLY saying "you aren't physically moving them unless you are physically moving them". Think about that for a second.
Bull rush covers pushing someone in a straight line. Reposition covers grabbing their arm/leg/head/tentacle and swinging them around. Both can end their movement out of your reach because you physically push them out.
Kazaan wrote: So the only remaining logical conclusion is that you are goading them to move themselves; which requires that they be capable of performing said movement. So it does say that the target must be capable of moving in the same way that Bleeding Attack says that the target must possess blood or something equivalent; implicitly rather than explicitly. Being immune to bleed is listed at the creature's type. Observe. I can't offhand recall a creature that doesn't have being immune to bleed listed in either it's type, subtype or stat block where it'd be logical that it can't bleed.
@ErrantPursuit
I'm sorry, that just really breaks my immersion. You can't move someone there because you are being too overt? But when you want to move them into a flanking position you aren't? Seriously, worse break of immersion than all of 4ths problem powers combined.
LoneKnave wrote: Kazaan wrote: Furthermore, since the last square of movement can be to a non-adjacent square, you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them; and that's already covered under Bull Rush. you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them;
Here you are LITERALLY saying "you aren't physically moving them unless you are physically moving them". Think about that for a second.
Bull rush covers pushing someone in a straight line. Reposition covers grabbing their arm/leg/head/tentacle and swinging them around. Both can end their movement out of your reach because you physically push them out.
So riddle me this; if Reposition is actually physically moving them... why can't you physically shove them into a trap or over a cliff by default? The fact that Reposition inherently prohibits you from doing something that, logically, you should very well be capable of doing in the case of a physical, forceful movement, we can conclude that Reposition, by default, is not physical, forceful movement. Using a Trip weapon just means that the shape of the weapon is better for goading them into movement and can be used to, at least to a degree, physically move them; though not to the point that you can forcefully move them into a dangerous position.
Quote: So riddle me this; if Reposition is actually physically moving them... why can't you physically shove them into a trap or over a cliff by default? Good question, and honestly, I have no idea. I suspect balance reasons (especially since tactical reposition DOES let you move people off cliffs and stuff). I actually really wouldn't mind asking the designer what he was thinking when he did that.
Also, you can't be serious about the whole "trip weapon's shape is better for goading someone into moving" thing. That's some serious straw grasping. And still doesn't answer why Reposition is STR based, or possibly DEX with agile maneuvers/weapon finesse, with no option existing for using CHA, Bluff, Intimidate, or anything else that usually would be used for it.
I dunno, why is Steal based on Strength? Because it's a combat maneuver and CMB is based on Strength. Why is Overrun based on Strength? How does Strength have anything to do with running past someone? Both Grapple and Bull Rush talk about moving and pushing your opponent. Drag talks about pulling your opponent. Reposition, however, is worded distinctly different; "attempt to force your opponent to move". If it were just a matter of grabbing them and shoving them around, it would just say that you "attempt to move your opponent". The fact that they use passive voice indicates that you aren't "moving" them but making "them move".
Steal in combat is usually forcefully taking an item, not pickpocketing, so there's bound to be some resistance (and agile maneuvers is a thing still). Overrun is literally trampling over someone. How the hell would that not be STR based?
The way I see it, while the description of the action may have the implication that it's not physically moving someone, the mechanics behind it all support the opposite without doubt. So if the description can be interpreted either way, but the mechanics point to one thing, I'm going to go with that thing.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
