If they are on opposite corners or edges of the invisible creature's square, and they have action economy that would allow them to make a melee attack into that square - yes.
Okay then. Wizard on one side. Fighter on the other.
Wizard casts a non-attack spell (say detect magic - leaving no action economy left to make an attack with).
Fighter attacks as normal.
Does the fighter get a flanking bonus to his attack roll against the invisible creature?
If they are on opposite corners or edges of the invisible creature's square, and they have action economy that would allow them to make a melee attack into that square - yes.Okay then. Wizard on one side. Fighter on the other.
Wizard casts a non-attack spell (say detect magic - leaving no action economy left to make an attack with).
Fighter attacks as normal.Does the fighter get a flanking bonus to his attack roll against the invisible creature?
It looks like you're restating your Wizard example, which I just answered a couple of posts up, but:
Does the Wizard have a weapon in-hand, natural attacks, or Improved Unarmed Strike? If he does, then yes - the fighter gets flanking, because the Wizard can still make an AoO (which fulfills the requirement to be able to make a melee attack during the round, even though it's not your turn). If he lacks a weapon, natural attacks, or IUS, then no - the Fighter does not, because the Wizard no longer has the capability to make an AoO.
|
Threatening is based off of your ability to attack, not your ability to make AoO's. Consider if you will a tiny creature. It does not threaten adjacent squares because it cannot attack into them, not because it lacks AoO's.
In the case of Total defense you loose your ability to make attacks against a target, barring special abilities or feats. Mechanically I would say that you do not threaten anyone. Also, consider a wizards with no spells in hand. He does not threaten any squares because he is unarmed. So while a wizard, tiny creature, or someone in full defense is still a "threat" they do not actually threaten the area around them so far as the rules are concerned.
Sorry, I missed your response to the wizard example, posts are flying pretty fast :).
The hold person telekinesis example is not valid as telekinesis is not a melee attack, and therefore doesn't threaten. If said paralyzed person can somehow make a melee attack as a mental action then he would qualify as threatening.
Note that bull rush/disarm as part of telekinesis is in place of a melee attack, not as a melee attack. That is, these things themselves are not melee attacks.
If he lacks a weapon, natural attacks, or IUS, then no - the Fighter does not, because the Wizard no longer has the capability to make an AoO.
Your no answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. It is because he does not threaten. If it was simply because he could not make an AoO then that is already covered by the total concealment of invisibility, which you've stated yourself that invisibility itself does not prevent flanking.
So the next question then is:
What part of RAW makes an exception to total defense standard action compared to the armed wizard casting a spell standard action?
Note that I can see where the question comes in and thus have FAQed the question.
If the "able to make an attack" simply means that you're armed with a weapon that can attack the square, then you threaten. However, in order to be able to make an attack, you require more than just a weapon - you require the appropriate action available in order to attack with, so if it's including that as a possibility (and that's how I view it personally), then you would threaten as soon as you exhaust the actions you have available with which to attack.
Your no answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. It is because he does not threaten. If it was simply because he could not make an AoO then that is already covered by the total concealment of invisibility, which you've stated yourself that invisibility itself does not prevent flanking.
I'm uncertain where you're going with this. I've never said that you threaten only if you can make AoOs. I've said you can threaten with an AoO; you can also threaten if you could use some other action type - be it standard, full-round, move, swift, free, or immediate - to make a melee attack.
If you have a standard action or a full-round action available, you can make (at least) a melee attack against the enemy, and therefore you threaten.
If you can make an AoO against an enemy, then you can make (at least) a melee attack against the enemy, and therefore you threaten.
If you have a melee weapon readied but you no longer have a standard or full-round action available, and for some reason you are barred from making AoOs, unless you can somehow make a melee attack as an immediate, free, or swift action, you cannot make a melee attack against the enemy.
As iterated several times up thread, total defense prevents you from taking an AoO's till your next turn. It does not prevent you from making attacks otherwise.So when you cannot make an attack during your turn (total defence), you cannot threaten a square and therefor cannot provide flanking.
getting disarmed removes the threat you normally make (unless you are a monk) and is an exeption to the threat you normally supply.
I missed several posts writing my message but I caught up now. I tend to think you might be right with the fact that just the AoO are removed and not the threat. But I must say that even though the rules do not specifically state threat ends with total defence, I find it strange that it appears that total defence would allow you to make an attack during your turn (with haste perhaps) without any penalty.
Maybe we need to ask a ruling on this possibility as it doesn't seem to fit with the total defence stance (because that sounds like defence only and no attacks).
I missed several posts writing my message but I caught up now. I tend to think you might be right with the fact that just the AoO are removed and not the threat. But I must say that even though the rules do no specifically state threat ends with total defence, I find it strange that it appears that total defence would allow you to make an attack during your turn (with haste perhaps) without any penalty.
Haste wouldn't let you do it -- the extra attack requires that you take a full attack on your turn, which somebody using total defense clearly isn't doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your no answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. It is because he does not threaten. If it was simply because he could not make an AoO then that is already covered by the total concealment of invisibility, which you've stated yourself that invisibility itself does not prevent flanking.I'm uncertain where you're going with this. I've never said that you threaten only if you can make AoOs. I've said you can threaten with an AoO; you can also threaten if you could use some other action type - be it standard, full-round, move, swift, free, or immediate - to make a melee attack.
If you have a standard action or a full-round action available, you can make (at least) a melee attack against the enemy, and therefore you threaten.
If you can make an AoO against an enemy, then you can make (at least) a melee attack against the enemy, and therefore you threaten.
If you have a melee weapon readied but you no longer have a standard or full-round action available, and for some reason you are barred from making AoOs, unless you can somehow make a melee attack as an immediate, free, or swift action, you cannot make a melee attack against the enemy.
Sorry, let me reclarify the example, or question, and you tell me at which point you disagree with whether the fighter gets a flanking bonus. I believe the fighter gets the flanking bonus in all of the examples, based on that flanking and threatening are basic building blocks of the rules. You threaten squares you could make a melee attack into. You can flank squares you threaten. Without an exception written into an ability then these two facts are always in effect.
On to the scenarios:
Defender is invisible (thus you cannot take AoO's against him).
Fighter is on one side of the invisible creature.
Wizard (with a dagger in one hand) is on the other side of the creature.
Example 1:
Wizard stabs with his dagger. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).
Example 2:
Wizard casts a non-combat spell. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).
Example 3:
Wizard takes total defense. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).
I missed several posts writing my message but I caught up now. I tend to think you might be right with the fact that just the AoO are removed and not the threat. But I must say that even though the rules do no specifically state threat ends with total defence, I find it strange that it appears that total defence would allow you to make an attack during your turn (with haste perhaps) without any penalty.Haste wouldn't let you do it -- the extra attack requires that you take a full attack on your turn, which somebody using total defense clearly isn't doing.
Correct. Haste in 3.5 (iirc) allowed an extra standard action. Pathfinder changed that.
However, mythic rules Amazing Initiative would allow it.
Maybe we need to ask a ruling on this possibility as it doesn't seem to fit with the total defence stance (because that sounds like defence only and no attacks).
Conceptually I don't have an issue total defense still allowing threatening.
Raging barbarians charges at me and I go into total defense to avoid getting hacked to pieces. My ally steps up behind him. As soon as the raging barbarian turns his back on me to contend with my ally I switch tactics and stab him in the back. Game mechanics require us to take our turns in rounds. Visualization makes everything one fluid flow of motion of shifting stances, tactics, etc.
Well, mythic rules let you do all kinds of impossible things. I wouldn't bat an eye at it letting you attack while on total defense.
Well, mythic rules let you do all kinds of impossible things. I wouldn't bat an eye at it letting you attack while on total defense.
Compared to all the normal everyday things that we can do in real life like cast fireballs, travel to other dimensions, and fire four arrows from a bow in six seconds of time :).
I'm jesting of course, but impossible things is rather a relative statement in light of a fantasy RPG setting.
Sorry, let me reclarify the example, or question, and you tell me at which point you disagree with whether the fighter gets a flanking bonus. I believe the fighter gets the flanking bonus in all of the examples, based on that flanking and threatening are basic building blocks of the rules. You threaten squares you could make a melee attack into. You can flank squares you threaten. Without an exception written into an ability then these two facts are always in effect.
On to the scenarios:
Defender is invisible (thus you cannot take AoO's against him).
Fighter is on one side of the invisible creature.
Wizard (with a dagger in one hand) is on the other side of the creature.Example 1:
Wizard stabs with his dagger. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).Example 2:
Wizard casts a non-combat spell. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).Example 3:
Wizard takes total defense. He is now out of actions he can make an attack with. (He can't make AoO's remember due to invisibility).
Fighter attacks with his sword (and gets +2 flanking bonus).
First, to answer your question:
Interpreting the section of the threaten definition "...can make a melee attack..." to mean "...have a weapon hand with which you can attack as well as having an appropriate action available with which you could make an attack", the Fighter would not get a flanking bonus in any of the three examples. In each instance, while the Wizard has a weapon with which he could make an attack, he no longer has the necessary action available to be able to make an attack, and thus he no longer threatens for purposes of providing a flank bonus to the Fighter.
Next, some rationale behind that stance (I'm spoiling it for brevity's sake but I'd like it if at least you [bbangartner] would read it):
But then SRM mentioned that invisible allies could grant a flank bonus. And I've always played that way too. But if the enemy isn't aware of the invisible ally, he wouldn't put any attention on the invisible guy - so why does the invisible guy provide a flanking bonus?
If you threaten simply by wielding a dagger while adjacent to an enemy - even if you lack the action economy to attack with it - then it makes some sense because the enemy can still see you holding a dagger, and so he deems you a threat (even though he doesn't know you lack the ability to attack him for the rest of the round.
That logic breaks down once you threaten with the dagger even though you're invisible; a dagger that your enemy doesn't know is there can't detract from his attention. So you must threaten for some other reason - and that's because you can make an attack.
At that point 'threaten' shifts from being determined from the enemy's point of view to being determined by your perception. And that makes action economy important because now it's no longer "He's splitting his defense against me because I have a dagger," but instead becomes "I am armed and also have time to attack him, and so I'm a threat." Once you are just armed but no longer have the time to attack him . . . are you still a threat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you are just armed but no longer have the time to attack him . . . are you still a threat?
This becomes a game mechanic construct of playing the game in rounds because that is how we need to do it rather than trying to handle all combat actions simultaneously.
Do you believe that if you take all of your AoO's in a round then you no longer threaten till the start of your next turn? (I know some advocate that, I'm not sure where you stand on that).
Once you are just armed but no longer have the time to attack him . . . are you still a threat?
This becomes a game mechanic construct of playing the game in rounds because that is how we need to do it rather than trying to handle all combat actions simultaneously.
Do you believe that if you take all of your AoO's in a round then you no longer threaten till the start of your next turn? (I know some advocate that, I'm not sure where you stand on that).
From the interpretation of RAW that I'm arguing, if you burn all of your AoOs and you are past your turn in the initiative order, then you no longer threaten. You no longer have the potential of making a melee attack during that round (barring very unusual circumstances - I believe there's a teamwork feat that allows you to make an attack when an ally crits or something).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good news. The punctuation is the key.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
That is very clear because of the comma, which joins two related thoughts.
It says:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
"You threaten even when it is not your turn.
That's what it says.
It does NOT say "you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack when it is not your turn." Removing the comma and the "even" makes a completely different sentence.
If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. There is no specification whatsoever that such an attack needs to be possible at any particular time. By withholding your attack (Full Defense) you have demonstrated that you can attack. You have simply elected not to.
NOTHING says that you must be able to make that melee attack "right now". On your turn is sufficient.
From the interpretation of RAW that I'm arguing, if you burn all of your AoOs and you are past your turn in the initiative order, then you no longer threaten. You no longer have the potential of making a melee attack during that round (barring very unusual circumstances - I believe there's a teamwork feat that allows you to make an attack when an ally crits or something).
I suspected that was your stance, but wanted to be sure.
I'm going to throw out a 4th example just for interest (we obviously are in disagreement on how and when you threaten, but I think we've gone over all the relevant points).
But using the same invisible defender, wizard, and fighter.
Example 4:
Wizard readies an action to attack when the fighter attacks.
Fighter attacks.
Which, if either, gets the flanking bonus?
From the interpretation of RAW that I'm arguing, if you burn all of your AoOs and you are past your turn in the initiative order, then you no longer threaten. You no longer have the potential of making a melee attack during that round (barring very unusual circumstances - I believe there's a teamwork feat that allows you to make an attack when an ally crits or something).I suspected that was your stance, but wanted to be sure.
I'm going to throw out a 4th example just for interest (we obviously are in disagreement on how and when you threaten, but I think we've gone over all the relevant points).
But using the same invisible defender, wizard, and fighter.
Example 4:
Wizard readies an action to attack when the fighter attacks.
Fighter attacks.Which, if either, gets the flanking bonus?
I'll take the simplest circumstance and assume neither have used their AoOs: Both threaten from the get-go and threaten for the duration of the round because they both have weapons ready and have the capacity to attack during the round still. The Wizard used his standard action to ready, but he still has AoOs and so he threatens and grants the Fighter a flanking bonus, and the Fighter threatens because he is currently making an attack.
Now, assuming that the Wizard had burned all his AoOs already in the round, then the Fighter would not get a flanking bonus on his attack. Why? The Wizard used his standard action to 'ready', and even though his readied action was an attack, it goes off immediately before the Fighter's action - leaving the Fighter swinging at a time when the Wizard no longer has an action with which he could make an attack.
Good news. The punctuation is the key.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
That is very clear because of the comma, which joins two related thoughts.
It says:
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
"You threaten even when it is not your turn.That's what it says.
It does NOT say "you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack when it is not your turn." Removing the comma and the "even" makes a completely different sentence.
If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. There is no specification whatsoever that such an attack needs to be possible at any particular time. By withholding your attack (Full Defense) you have demonstrated that you can attack. You have simply elected not to.
NOTHING says that you must be able to make that melee attack "right now". On your turn is sufficient.
All using the Total Defense action indicates is that you can take a standard action. Total Defense is a standard action; a (melee) attack action is a standard action; but that does not make all standard actions attack actions.
Technically, you can take the Total Defense action even if you're completely unarmed, as it has no requirement for you to be wielding a weapon.
As to the parsing of the sentence: I don't think anyone is arguing that you're incapable of threatening when it's not your turn. Far from it, I know you can threaten when it's not your turn - because you can make melee attacks in the form of AoOs, and the ability to make melee attacks is the requirement for threatening.
Once your turn is over and you have made all AoOs you can make during the round, however, you no longer can make melee attacks. You have a weapon, but you no longer have the actions required to use it - and if you cannot make an attack with that weapon, then you don't threaten.
Now, if you're arguing that as long as you can make a melee attack on any turn, then I'll point back to my earlier response to that: That means on round 1 my Wizard can move adjacent to you with his sword drawn; on round 2, he can just stand there with his sword drawn; on round 3 he can sheathe his weapon - and still be threatening, because at some point in the immediate past (or the immediate future) he can make an attack.
I'd prefer an official response (and looks like a few people agree). Besides, I'm already home.
Hmm, your response to example 4 has given me thought to ask some additional questions.
Specifically this part here:
I'll take the simplest circumstance and assume neither have used their AoOs
In all of the examples given both the fighter and the wizard have not used any AoO's, so technically they still have them for use (except example 3 where total defense action for the wizard prevents him from taking AoO's).
Do you posit that just the ability to still take an AoO still allows you to threaten? Or must you have both the ability to take an AoO (and therefore threaten) and the ability to use said AoO on the target you are threatening (which in the example scenarios can't happen because of the invisibility). I'm assuming the second given you said in none of the examples would you give the fighter the flanking bonus. Something to consider as you answer this is that you threaten squares, not creatures.
EDIT: A more complicated example.
Two tiny creatures in the same square. One is invisible, the other isn't. Do the fighter and wizard to either side threaten the square or not - given the 4 various setups previously provided?
Sorry, it's been a long day. I plead old age and too much time playing Devil's Advocate. I totally wrote the response assuming the target was visible. I apologize, because that just confused things even further (including me)
To correct my response to example #4:
But using the same invisible defender, wizard, and fighter.
Example 4:
Wizard readies an action to attack when the fighter attacks.
Fighter attacks.
The Wizard used his standard action to ready an attack. Since he cannot make AoOs against the (invisible) defender and he's now burned the only method he has to make a melee attack into the square; that means the Fighter gains no flank bonus.
As soon as the Fighter begins to swing, the Wizard's attack triggers. At that point, the Fighter has the ability to make (is, in fact, making) a melee attack. So the Wizard would gain a flanking bonus on his attack.
As to the second iteration of examples (two tiny creatures, one visible and one not, in the same square): Against the invisible creature, the scenarios would play out just like the original answers.
Against the tiny visible creature:
The Fighter would have flanking bonuses in examples 1, 2, and 4. In all of those, the Wizard has at least his AoOs available, meaning that he meets the "can make a melee attack" criteria to threaten. He would not have a flanking bonus in example 3 because the Wizard used his standard action to use Total Defense (which leaves him no actions with which to make melee attacks for the round, and without the capacity to make AoOs).
The Wizard would also have a flanking bonus in examples 1, 2, and 4 - on any AoOs made against the visible creature before the Fighter's turn and before the Fighter had exhausted all of his own AoOs; he would not in example 3 because, well, he obviously can't make AoOs after using Total Defense.
Let me try to summarize, if I can:
You threaten under two (two-and-a-half) circumstances:
1. You have an action left in the current round with which you can take a melee attack.
OR
2. You have attacks of opportunity remaining.
2a. Nothing in the scenario bars you from making attacks of opportunity.
I think everyone's really misunderstanding the game mechanics of a round. The events are actually occurring almost simultaneous. Initiative is an in game mechanism for resolving actions. So when the rule says you must be able to do melee damage on a particular square at any point in the round it means simply that: a melee space is threatened if at some point you could opt to attack.
I don't think so. If everything is actually happening at the same time it changes the entire game. Either you accept that the game needs some division to more gamey mechanics or Combat Casting for instance becomes impossible, retroactive and weird things crop up.
As has been stated.
Threatening gives the ability to use AOOs.
AOOs do not create Threatening.
There are ways to use Total Defense and still have attacked when it was your turn. You threaten when you can attack, even if it isn't your turn.
If you could have attacked that square at any time you are next to (not just when it is your turn) it then you Threaten per RAW.
Also: Really hoping we get an FAQ on this one way or another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The threatening rules say "can make an attack" meaning if you had an attack could you attack that square. It is a question of reach not whether you actually have an attack available. It does not say "must be able to attack". That is my reading of the RAW.
The concept of Flanking is that your target's attention is split between multiple threats
Which is why invisible people don't provide flanking bonuses to allies...
Except they do, per designer (SRM) comment. And that's exactly why I started re-thinking my stance on this. If you have an invisible Rogue behind you and a Fighter in front of you, why does the Fighter get a flanking bonus? You aren't splitting your attention; you don't know the Rogue is there, holding a knife inches from your back. That means there must be some other reason why the Fighter gets a flank bonus.
If you could have attacked that square at any time you are next to (not just when it is your turn) it then you Threaten per RAW.
If you don't believe there is a time limit on when you had to be capable of making an attack, then you run into the scenario that I presented earlier:
Round 1: Wizard with a sword drawn moves adjacent to you
Round 2: Wizard sheathes his sword
Round 3: Fighter moves opposite the Wizard and attacks you, gaining a flanking bonus because back in Round 1 the Wizard could have attacked you, even though he now no longer has a weapon readied with which to make his attack
At the very least, for the rule to make sense there has to be some sort of time constraint on determining when you could have made an attack. Saying that you threaten because four rounds ago you could have made an attack against the enemy (even though now you've thrown your sword down an oubliette) isn't sensible, and definitely not RAW\RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, this caught some traction.
I just want to again remind people to hit the FAQ button - there seems to be a bit of ambiguity here.
At the very least, for the rule to make sense there has to be some sort of time constraint on determining when you could have made an attack. Saying that you threaten because four rounds ago you could have made an attack against the enemy (even though now you've thrown your sword down an oubliette) isn't sensible, and definitely not RAW\RAI.
I'm not sure why you try to stretch this over multiple rounds. No one is advocating that.
In a single given round, the wizard with a weapon in hand could attack, or he could cast a spell/drink a potion/total defense/etc. But he COULD have attacked as one of his options - all within that one round. This is the argument being used to say he still threatens for the duration of that round (assuming of course he does get killed or otherwise incapacitated due to some one else's action).
At the very least, for the rule to make sense there has to be some sort of time constraint on determining when you could have made an attack. Saying that you threaten because four rounds ago you could have made an attack against the enemy (even though now you've thrown your sword down an oubliette) isn't sensible, and definitely not RAW\RAI.I'm not sure why you try to stretch this over multiple rounds. No one is advocating that.
Therefore, if your weapon could have attacked that square in a previous turn and you don't have a condition that explicitly makes you not Threaten - you Threaten.
If you could have attacked that square at any time you are next to (not just when it is your turn) it[/b] then you Threaten per RAW.
If I'm somehow misreading his intent then I apologize. I take his statements to indicate that he believes you threaten as long as you threaten\threatened the adjacent square at any point in the combat.
At the very least his earlier statement (to me) indicates that a Wizard who goes at the top of the round could have a dagger out, and sheathe it as the very first action of his turn, and he would continue to threaten for the rest of the round, even though he's not armed for the majority of the round.
I suppose Democratus could have more succinctly stated his view. While I can't speak for him with certainty, I took his statements to mean to fall within the current round only and that he was explaining from the general activities of characters. Putting your weapon away (or dropping it) would fall under the same category as being incapacitated - that is something happened during the round which no longer qualifies you to threaten until you get a new weapon or means of attacking adjacent squares. Which I understand you view using up your AoO's as being one of those conditions which disqualifies you from further threatening in the round.
Mr Pitt, given this thread and the other thread on flanking and invisible your question is quite humorous (intended as strictly a compliment to you for your wit).
I apologize for being unclear. I tend to have a dozen ideas running through my head at once when I get excited about a topic and can sometimes be less than perfect in expressing myself.
bbangerter has done a better job explaining a point of view very close to mine. :)
In the end I can see this from both sides, because the text for Threaten is ambiguous enough to be read in many ways.
At this point I think we're just hitting the ball back and forth. I've hit the FAQ link and hope to see some results.
Thanks to everyone on both sides for well thought arguments and respectful responses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a great debate! Forgive the tardiness of my two cents.
Whether or not I agree, RAW, a character taking Total Defense can flank, as can one who is flat-footed (without Combat Reflexes or Uncanny Dodge) and/or grappled, as long as he or she has reach >0 ft. and a melee weapon (or Improved Unarmed Strike, claws, etc.). RAW, they are all able to flank because they are not specifically denied the ability to make a melee attack.
In the case of grappling, it’s most clear:
“A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled 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. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.”
A grappled creature cannot make AoO, but can attack if properly armed, and can thus threaten, RAW. While many Conditions disallow most physical actions and thus unambiguously restrict threatening and flanking (cowering, dazed, fascinated, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, and stunned) the words “cannot make attacks of opportunity” among all the Pathfinder conditions, are only used for grappled and flat-footed: "A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability."
Unable to react normally is not unable to act. A GM could rule that before your first turn in the initiative order comes up you are unable to act and thus cannot flank. However, “cannot make attacks of opportunity” is written rather than “cannot act,” and so, like the blinded, the grappled, and the total-defending, RAW, a character not specifically prevented from acting can still flank, if properly armed.
Similarly, attacks of opportunity aren’t among a disabled or staggered character’s specifically allowed actions, but they are not denied the ability to threaten, and so too may provide a flanking bonus. Whether or not they are allowed AoO? That’s for another thread.
Even a blind character, who treats everyone as having total concealment, and is consequently denied AoOs (“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.”), would be able to provide a flanking bonus, since he or she is still allowed to attack.
In fact, let’s have a pair of orcs battle a tag-team of goblins, while all affected by greater invisibility and lined up like so: Orc 1, Goblin 1, Orc 2, Goblin 2
RAW, Goblin 1 and Orc 2 are both flanked, even though no one can see each other.
Quick review of points we’ve made, you all more thoroughly and eloquently than I: (1) RAW, flanking requires threatening but does not specifically require the ability to make AoO. (2) RAW, grappled characters, flat-footed characters and characters using total defense cannot make AoO, but are not specifically restricted from threatening and can find a number of ways to act. (3) “You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.” meaning if you are properly armed and are not prevented from attacking, you threaten (4) Nowhere is it written that running out of AoOs means you no longer threaten. Logic me all you want, but it’s never stated and, IMO, that is not anything a GM was meant to track each round.
So, RAW, a flat-footed fighter with a sword drawn provides a flanking bonus, even without Combat Reflexes, or with Combat Reflexes but after making all his or her AoO for the round. Okay. What about a sleeping monk? RAW, an unconscious character is not specifically denied AoO, nor is a character that is dead, helpless or petrified.
RAW, you could take our sleeping monk, handcuff him, gouge out his eyes, tear off his legs, petrify him, then grapple his rather unfortunate statue. He’ll still give his allies a flanking bonus. 3.5 FAQ says the dead condition means you’re treated like an object, but its not PF official. So, after you’ve finally killed him, make his corpse into a throw rug... just don’t turn your back on it...
RAI, you cannot provide a flanking bonus when dead, helpless, petrified or unconscious. RAI is foggier with blinded, flat-footed, grappled, and total defense, but if a GM rules that a grappled character can flank, I believe he or she must allow flanking under all four circumstances, as they all specifically deny AoO but nothing else.
So your arcane trickster’s pig familiar might have a +4 AC as he flanks your foe. +6 if Babe’s an Acrobat. Any GM that can’t bulldoze that little exploit isn’t really trying.
Total defense does not say that you do not threaten. It only says that you can not make Attacks of Opportunity.
These are not the same thing.
You are correct that it does not explicitly say that you do not threaten. But following what it does through to the end shows that you don't threaten.
The definition of threaten is effectively "to be able to make a melee attack into an adjacent square". I quoted the rules that define the term above.
Now, when you make a melee attack, you normally do so in one of three ways: Either by taking a full-round action and make a full attack; taking a standard action and making a single melee attack (or two melee attacks if you are two-weapon fighting); or making an AoO, which is not an action.
Let's start at the end of the line and work backward:
Total defense already says you can't make AoOs, so that's out.
Total defense already takes a standard action, so you can't use your standard action to make a melee attack. You have a move action, a swift action, and one or more free actions left, but without specific class abilities you cannot use those to make a melee attack.
Total defense takes a standard action, so you can't use a full-round action (since it takes both your standard and your movement to do so) to make a full attack, and thereby make one or more melee attacks.
So total defense is making it so that, unless you have specific abilities that state otherwise, you cannot make a melee attack during your turn.
That means when using total defense you cannot make a melee attack into an adjacent square. And that means you don't threaten.
This is faulty reasoning. If you apply this reasoning it means that no one threatens or can make AoOs unless they used actions to attack on their turn. Which we know isn't how the game works. Lets examine your reasoning to a double move.
A double move already takes two move actions (or, rather, your move and standard action), so you can't use your standard action to make a melee attack. You don't have a move action, you only have a swift action, and one or more free actions left, but without specific class abilities you cannot use those to make a melee attack.
So, a double move is making it so that, unless you have specific abilities that state otherwise, you cannot make a melee attack on your turn.
This means that a double move prevents you from making a melee attack into adjacent squares. And that means that you don't threaten.
Since you don't threaten, you cannot make AoOs.
Spot the flaw.
Now, assuming that the Wizard had burned all his AoOs already in the round, then the Fighter would not get a flanking bonus on his attack. Why? The Wizard used his standard action to 'ready', and even though his readied action was an attack, it goes off immediately before the Fighter's action - leaving the Fighter swinging at a time when the Wizard no longer has an action with which he could make an attack.
That is as close as the game gets to a simultaneous double attack. These guys are literally attacking within milliseconds of one another, essentially striking at the same time in the game world.
And you think they don't give flanking to one another???
Reconsider your position dude, it is wrong.
If you don't believe there is a time limit on when you had to be capable of making an attack, then you run into the scenario that I presented earlier:
You are overcomplicating a very simple rule.
If you want to determine if someone is threatening, ask "could they attack that square, right now, if they had an action to do so?" If the answer is yes, they threaten.
Otherwise no one threatens, unless it is their turn.
Following your logic: To threaten you must be able to make an attack. You can only do that on your turn. The only other kind of attack you could make is an AoO. But to make an AoO you need to threaten first. So, unless you threaten you cannot make AoOs, so since you do not threaten, because you have no action available to you when it isn't your turn, it is impossible to threaten any square at all.
Your understanding and interpretation is untenable.
RAW, you could take our sleeping monk, handcuff him, gouge out his eyes, tear off his legs, petrify him, then grapple his rather unfortunate statue. He’ll still give his allies a flanking bonus. 3.5 FAQ says the dead condition means you’re treated like an object, but its not PF official. So, after you’ve finally killed him, make his corpse into a throw rug... just don’t turn your back on it...
RAI, you cannot provide a flanking bonus when dead, helpless, petrified or unconscious. RAI is foggier with blinded, flat-footed, grappled, and total defense, but if a GM rules that a grappled character can flank, I believe he or she must allow flanking under all four circumstances, as they all specifically deny AoO but nothing else.
I agreed with everything you posted up until this part.
If you do all of those things to a monk, that monk most certainly cannot make a melee attack, so thus doesn't threaten.
Haha, thanks! This is true wisdom on your part "RAW, you could take our sleeping monk, handcuff him, gouge out his eyes, tear off his legs, petrify him, then grapple his rather unfortunate statue. He’ll still give his allies a flanking bonus. 3.5 FAQ says the dead condition means you’re treated like an object, but its not PF official. So, after you’ve finally killed him, make his corpse into a throw rug... just don’t turn your back on it...
RAI, you cannot provide a flanking bonus when dead, helpless, petrified or unconscious. RAI is foggier with blinded, flat-footed, grappled, and total defense, but if a GM rules that a grappled character can flank, I believe he or she must allow flanking under all four circumstances, as they all specifically deny AoO but nothing else.
I agreed with everything you posted up until this part.
If you do all of those things to a monk, that monk most certainly cannot make a melee attack, so thus doesn't threaten.
If you want to determine if someone is threatening, ask "could they attack that square, right now, if they had an action to do so?" If the answer is yes, they threaten.
Otherwise no one threatens, unless it is their turn.
Of course that monk could not attack. However, a monk is able to attack with elbows and headbutts, and dead, petrified, etc. don't disallow actions in their descriptions. Just trying to show that you can't follow RAW blindly if it interferes with common sense. Not even in the abstraction that is D&D combat.
Also, in case it was unclear, by all four circumstances, I meant: blinded, flat-footed, grappled and total defense, most certainly not dead, helpless, petrified, unconscious.
|
I am jumping in at the end of this debate, so forgive me if I am covering a point that was already covered, but the crux of the matter seems to be the definition of "threatened"
Is someone threatened only when someone has the ability to attack them?
or is someone threatened by the perception that someone has the ability to attack them?
OR is someone threatened by an individual who could quite possibly be yelling in their ear or saying "Hey! Ice Demon! Your Momma was a snow blower!"
If you have to split your attention between two people, even if one of those people is not attacking at this moment the simple fact that they are there would cause you to be flanked. (RAI)
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
So just because as full defensive I am CHOOSING not to make attacks, does not mean that I am UNABLE to attack.
Flanking
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(RAW)
Full defensive does not cause me to not threaten.
OR is someone threatened by an individual who could quite possibly be yelling in their ear or saying "Hey! Ice Demon! Your Momma was a snow blower!"
If you have to split your attention between two people, even if one of those people is not attacking at this moment the simple fact that they are there would cause you to be flanked. (RAI)
** spoiler omitted **
So just because as full defensive I am CHOOSING not to make attacks, does not mean that I am UNABLE to attack.
Flanking
** spoiler omitted **Full defensive does not cause me not to threaten.
Haha! Bingo. Unless the language of threatening is changed to require the ability to make AoO, then an inability to make AoO does not deny the ability to flank, RAW. Even RAI, are you really going to turn your back on your cussing guy, just cause he has his shield up? Or that grappled guy swinging his handaxe around? Or that guy with the longsword who hasn't acted yet? Or even that blind man poking around with his spear?
So just because as full defensive I am CHOOSING not to make attacks, does not mean that I am UNABLE to attack.
Actually, the opposite is true. You selected an action type that does not allow you to attack, thus you can't attack, thus you don't threaten. Same as if you were casting a full round action spell, or if you were dead. Why you can't attack doesn't matter, you either threaten or you don't.
Just so you're fully aware, this interpretation is not supported by the rules in any way, shape, or form.Actually, the opposite is true. You selected an action type that does not allow you to attack, thus you can't attack, thus you don't threaten. Same as if you were casting a full round action spell, or if you were dead. Why you can't attack doesn't matter, you either threaten or you don't.
So just because as full defensive I am CHOOSING not to make attacks, does not mean that I am UNABLE to attack.
Actually, it is worse than that, even.
That interpretation makes it impossible to threaten, ever. Well, except on your turn, before you use your standard action.
If you use your action for total defense, you can no longer attack now. So, don’t threaten?
If you use your standard for an extra move, you can no longer attack now. So, don’t threaten?
Even if you use your action to attack... you can no longer attack now. So, don’t threaten?
That interpretation is ludicrous.
The only interpretation of whether or not someone threatens is if they ‘Are capable of making an attack, assuming that the action to do so was available to them.’ Basically, if you simply pretend everyone has an imaginary standard action just sitting there, that they could ‘theoretically use’, can they make an attack?
That is how you determine if someone threatens. Otherwise no one ever does, outside their own turn.