RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think the rules state explicitly that you only count as being in your space. They also don't state explicitly that you count as being in any squares other than your space. This is the reason why Remy hasn't been able to quote the relevant passage to prove that you effectively move closer when you attack, nor have the rest of us been able to prove that you don't. It's something of a standstill, so the relevant question is: Who has the burden of proof?
There are a number of ways to determine that in a philosophical debate, and I think they can be readily used in this kind of a debate as well. They include:
* Occam's Razor. Which hypothesis has the fewest assumptions?
* Argument of Ignorance. This is a fallacy of thinking that lack of evidence on the contrary makes a claim true.
* Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof lies upon the person making unfalsiable claims. "Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong." We both agree that space and reach exist (let's call them Earth and Mars), but the teapot is the issue here.
* Proving a negative. When one party says "prove that this thing doesn't exist" and the other party says "prove that it does exist", the burden of proof lies upon the party that is made the claim that this thing exists. Some theists disagree on this, so YMMV.
Game rules generally only tell you explicitly what you can do. So anything that you supposedly can do beyond what the rules explicitly say goes into the teapot territory. (Naturally, at the GM's discretion, you can do a whole lot of things not specifically mentioned in the rules. But this is not what we're talking about here. People are making claims about what is RAW and what is not.)
The proof is the existence of the feat.
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
This feat makes it clear that without it you cannot do what it enables you to do.
What does it enable you to do? To strike at creatures that are not within your reach by readying an action.
What other proof is necessary?
The proof is the existence of the feat.
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
This feat makes it clear that without it you cannot do what it enables you to do.
What does it enable you to do? To strike at creatures that are not within your reach by readying an action.
What other proof is necessary?
That is exactly what the feat lets you do.
But what I've said is different.
You can reach something that attacks you with reach, when they attack you. Thus a readied action to attack them when they are in your vicinity while they attack you is RAW legit.
The feat allows you to attack them when they attack you with a readied action, regardless of whether you can reach them or not.
In simple terms, the Strike Back feat allows you to hit a dude with a reach weapon from far away.
I don't think the rules state explicitly that you only count as being in your space. They also don't state explicitly that you count as being in any squares other than your space. This is the reason why Remy hasn't been able to quote the relevant passage to prove that you effectively move closer when you attack, nor have the rest of us been able to prove that you don't. It's something of a standstill, so the relevant question is: Who has the burden of proof?
There are a number of ways to determine that in a philosophical debate, and I think they can be readily used in this kind of a debate as well. They include:
* Occam's Razor. Which hypothesis has the fewest assumptions?
* Argument of Ignorance. This is a fallacy of thinking that lack of evidence on the contrary makes a claim true.
* Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof lies upon the person making unfalsiable claims. "Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong." We both agree that space and reach exist (let's call them Earth and Mars), but the teapot is the issue here.
* Proving a negative. When one party says "prove that this thing doesn't exist" and the other party says "prove that it does exist", the burden of proof lies upon the party that is made the claim that this thing exists. Some theists disagree on this, so YMMV.Game rules generally only tell you explicitly what you can do. So anything that you supposedly can do beyond what the rules explicitly say goes into the teapot territory. (Naturally, at the GM's discretion, you can do a whole lot of things not specifically mentioned in the rules. But this is not what we're talking about here. People are making claims about what is RAW and what is not.)
To entertain the notion that a creature can attack you, bite you, and never get anywhere near you at the same time, is to court madness.
But we know that intervening barriers between a creature and his target will absolutely prevent him from attacking the target. Why? Because part of him must necessarily actually get to the target to make the attack.
Example, again: You cast Antilife Shell. A 10ft radius centered on you. It hedges out and keeps living creatures at bay.
A dragon with 20ft reach walks over and either...
A) Bites your face off because he has reach. And doesn't need to enter the area to bite you.
or
B) The spell keeps the dragon at bay and no part of him may enter the magically protected area, he doesn't bite your face off.
I think the answer is B.
That a creature might need to be able to access your space (so to speak) does not mean that you can ready an attack on their limbs or weapon.
Despite your protestations otherwise, the AoO analogy is apt. If making a reach attack requires "entering" surrounding areas, it is a fair conclusion to say that if you strike a creature (particularly with a natural weapon or UAS) you are necessarily entering their space, at least to some degree. Entering an occupied space provokes. Ergo, every attack provokes, perhaps with some limited exceptions.
To borrow a phrase, your position courts madness.
Exception that proves a rule. It's a valid proof and satisfies this scenario.
I am sorry Remy, but I just do not seeing this flying at a PFS table.
You try it in a home game, I would check with your DM, but expect disappointment.
You don't understand my position. All I am doing is reading the rules as written and discussing them.
I am well aware that most people are mistaken on this issue, and that any DM has the final say in whatever game table there happens to be a game. But, that is irrelevant to what the rules say, to what the words on the pages actually are.
An appeal to popular opinion doesn't really change what the RAW actually is.
I don't mind being a minority voice on this topic. Popular opinion doesn't equate to truth.
That a creature might need to be able to access your space (so to speak) does not mean that you can ready an attack on their limbs or weapon.
Despite your protestations otherwise, the AoO analogy is apt. If making a reach attack requires "entering" surrounding areas, it is a fair conclusion to say that if you strike a creature (particularly with a natural weapon or UAS) you are necessarily entering their space, at least to some degree. Entering an occupied space provokes. Ergo, every attack provokes, perhaps with some limited exceptions.
To borrow a phrase, your position courts madness.
Exception that proves a rule. It's a valid proof and satisfies this scenario.
Attacks do not provoke. Only things that say they provoke actually provoke.
Exiting spaces provokes, when you are using an action to move. Don't think so? Check the action chart in the combat chapter that outlines what does and what does not provoke.
Move actions provoke. Attack actions do not. (Except ranged and unarmed, of course)
This isn't that difficult.
Rules quotes again, because I'm not basing my arguments on personal opinion alone...
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Attacking with a natural weapon simply doesn't provoke an AoO.
|
A creature occupies its own space, and by definition can never leave it as the space moves with the creature.
As far as the rules are concerned, even a melee attack at 5-foot range is an attack launched by the creature, without ever leaving its own space.
That dragon launches a bite attack, with a reach of 20-feet, without ever leaving its own space. It's a compromise of reality to allow gameplay.
The proof of this is simply that creatures occupy their own space, and without a written exception (allowing a creature to leave its own space-an impossibility) then no attack, whatever its range and by whatever body part, causes the creature to leave its own space.
As for readied actions, just because you can construct a sentence saying that you'll do something doesn't mean you are capable of doing it.
A creature occupies its own space, and by definition can never leave it as the space moves with the creature.
As far as the rules are concerned, even a melee attack at 5-foot range is an attack launched by the creature, without ever leaving its own space.
That dragon launches a bite attack, with a reach of 20-feet, without ever leaving its own space. It's a compromise of reality to allow gameplay.
The proof of this is simply that creatures occupy their own space, and without a written exception (allowing a creature to leave its own space-an impossibility) then no attack, whatever its range and by whatever body part, causes the creature to leave its own space.
As for readied actions, just because you can construct a sentence saying that you'll do something doesn't mean you are capable of doing it.
If what you are saying here is true, then my position crumbles and I must concede that I am wrong.
Answer the question from earlier.
You cast Antilife Shell, which creates a 10ft radius barrier that hedges out and prevents living creatures from entering. A dragon with 20ft reach comes up to the edge of the barrier and...
A) Bites your face off, because he doesn't need to enter the area to bite you.
B)Cannot bite your face off, because the barrier prevents him from entering the magically protected area.
I think the answer is B, and that the rules are consistent with my answer. Do you believe that the dragon can bite the caster without ever entering the area of the protection?
|
|
A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it.
'....you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it.'
This is because, in order to attack a creature, you have to target it where it is, and that is within its space.
If all the Strike Back feat did was to let you ready an attack versus reach weapon users, then it would not say:-
• You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
It would say:-
• You can strike at foes that attack you using reach weapons, by targeting them instead of their weapons as they come at you.
Instead of saying:-
• Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
It would say:-
• Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you with a reach weapon, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
It would also say:-
• Normal: You can only ready an attack to target whose body parts extend into your space
But it doesn't. The whole feat is written from the POV of 'normal' being that you are unable to ready an action to:-
• strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
|
|
You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures.
The effect hedges out animals, aberrations, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, and vermin, but not constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead.
some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can't move through a blocking obstacle.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
If Antilife Shell affects you then it blocks your movement. It is a solid barrier to you. A creature on the other side has Total Cover from you. Therefore you can't attack through it.
If a golem with reach attacks you from the other side of an Antilife Shell, you cannot ready an action to attack its limbs, because you cannot attack 'limbs' in the game system (without a written exception), you can only attack 'the golem', and 'the golem' is entirely within its own space even if its limbs attack you with reach.
Unless you have Strike Back. : )
|
If what you are saying here is true, then my position crumbles and I must concede that I am wrong.
Answer the question from earlier.
You cast Antilife Shell, which creates a 10ft radius barrier that hedges out and prevents living creatures from entering. A dragon with 20ft reach comes up to the edge of the barrier and...
A) Bites your face off, because he doesn't need to enter the area to bite you.
B)Cannot bite your face off, because the barrier prevents him from entering the magically protected area.
I think the answer is B, and that the rules are consistent with my answer. Do you believe that the dragon can bite the caster without ever entering the area of the protection?
You're actually missing the point. The fact that the spell prevents a creature from reaching into that space is in no way any evidence that you can attack a creature by striking at its limbs. Nor does this provide any evidence that one can ready against a reach attack without the Strike Back feat.
To give a visual example, your human mini, armed with a longsword, needs to be adjacent to the dragon mini to attack it, not merely standing somewhere within the dragon's area of reach. If you ready to attack a dragon that attacks you, your mini must be adjacent to the dragon mini, unless you have the Strike Back feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff about the antilife shell
Ok, let's have a look at what the spell does:
"You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures.
The effect hedges out animals, aberrations, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, and vermin, but not constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead.
This spell may be used only defensively, not aggressively. Forcing an abjuration barrier against creatures that the spell keeps at bay collapses the barrier."
What does "prevents the entrance" mean, as a game term? It's not a game term, thus it's left up to the GM to decide if it includes just movement or also attacks. "Hedges out" has the same problem, it's not specific enough. I assume it to mean "you cannot move or attack across" or "it blocks line of effect for living creatures". It's an old spell that was written for an earlier edition (1e? 2e?) that has ambiguous language because they didn't design it with Remy Balster or the Pathfinder RPG in mind. But how is this relevant? Trying to guess what a spell presumably does is not proof or even evidence.
To entertain the notion that a creature can attack you, bite you, and never get anywhere near you at the same time, is to court madness.
As I've mentioned before, when you visualize the action, the dragon's head will certainly, without any doubt whatsoever come very close to the target. I'm sure everyone visualizes it that way, so there's no need to say that again and again. Yes it would be madness to say that because of the way the game mechanics work, you're not allowed to visualize it that way.
But looking at the game mechanics only, there's nothing in the rules that suggests the dragon's space changes or that any squares outside the dragon's space can be interacted with as though it was in those squares.
If attacks with reach work the way you claim, you shouldn't try to justify your claim by referring to spells and trying to guess how they work. If attacks with reach work the way you claim they do, the relevant rules text should be in the combat rules.
EDIT: It seems this conversation is going around in circles. Unless someone can bring something new to the table that isn't justifications based on how you visualize the action or what would make sense in real life, I'm going to say the case is concluded as far as I'm concerned.
That is exactly what the feat lets you do.
But what I've said is different.
You can reach something that attacks you with reach, when they attack you. Thus a readied action to attack them when they are in your vicinity while they attack you is RAW legit.
The feat allows you to attack them when they attack you with a readied action, regardless of whether you can reach them or not.
In simple terms, the Strike Back feat allows you to hit a dude with a reach weapon from far away.
This rules do not allow this. You can only attack creature's within your reach, despite the fact that they would "in reality" have to get close enought to you to hit them. That is what Strike Back simulates, your ability to do exactlyt that. Without it, there are no rules for striking a creature as it attacks you. Otherwise, as another poster mentioned every attack would provoke an AoO for "entering" a creature's square to attack it. But that's not how the rules work. You are focusing too much on how the world should work "realistically" instead of focusing on what the rules allow you to do and how they function. If you don't threaten the square a creature is in you cannot attack them with a melee weapon, period.
That a creature might need to be able to access your space (so to speak) does not mean that you can ready an attack on their limbs or weapon.
Despite your protestations otherwise, the AoO analogy is apt. If making a reach attack requires "entering" surrounding areas, it is a fair conclusion to say that if you strike a creature (particularly with a natural weapon or UAS) you are necessarily entering their space, at least to some degree. Entering an occupied space provokes. Ergo, every attack provokes, perhaps with some limited exceptions.
To borrow a phrase, your position courts madness.
Exception that proves a rule. It's a valid proof and satisfies this scenario.
Attacks do not provoke. Only things that say they provoke actually provoke.
Exiting spaces provokes, when you are using an action to move. Don't think so? Check the action chart in the combat chapter that outlines what does and what does not provoke.
Move actions provoke. Attack actions do not. (Except ranged and unarmed, of course)
This isn't that difficult.
Rules quotes again, because I'm not basing my arguments on personal opinion alone...
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.Attacking with a natural weapon simply doesn't provoke an AoO.
Entering an opponent's square provokes an attack of opportunity. Per your interpretation, attacking an opponent requires you to enter their square. Ergo, your attack provokes.
This also isn't that difficult.
Rules quote, because I'm not basing my arguments on personal opinion alone ...
Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: ... They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent.
Thus, entering an opponent's square provokes an AoO.
Of course, I think your interpretation is preposterous. But if you're holding that attacking with a natural or reach weapon causes you to actually extend into those squares for any purpose, then so it must hold for all attacks being made.