Readying an action to attack some one with reach.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I swear I've read it somewhere but can't find it now. Can you ready an action to attack the Weapon of some one attacking you with reach? If they are using a Natural weapon with Reach can you attack them?

I'm now being told it requires a feat (Strike Back), but from what I understood that feat relates to attacking a creature hitting you with a reach weapon as opposed to only being able to attack the weapon.


Attacking an opponent's weapon with your weapon is represented in Pathfinder by the sunder combat maneuver. Sunder can be used in place of any melee attack, but it does not obviate the requirement that you be in range to attack the creature itself. For that reason, Strike Back is the feat you want--it basically treats the creature as "in range" for your melee attack, whether it's an attack against the creature or a sunder against the weapon.


Without the Strike Back feat you cannot by the rules attack someone out of your reach. While it seems a reasonable house to allow someone to strike a reach weapon as they are attacked by it, you then run into "Hey why can't I hit the creatures arms (or whatever) when they attack me?". Then that is directly related to Strike Back.

I will mention, that before this feat was commonly known to exist many people that the rules allowed you to ready an action to strike at an enemy with reach when they attacked you. They presumed that the loss of ability to full attack by readying an action was enough of a trade off to make it valid, but ultimately were proven incorrect by the existance of this feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still allow readying to attack the limb/weapon at my table. The feat is silly, as is its BAB +11 requirement. You can already do things like ready an action to strike an otherwise unassailable creature attacking you from a wall via incorporeality or earth glide. It makes little sense that you can't do essentially the same thing in the case of reach.

But, RAW, you need Strike Back.


Also, don't forget you can include a 5' step with your readied action if you haven't otherwise moved that round. As long as their reach doesn't exceed yours by more than 5', that can also work.

But otherwise, no you can't really ready an action to attack the weapon or limb of your attacker without the Strike Back feat, as others have mentioned.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Why are we certain that RAW prevents you from readying an action to sunder a reach weapon used against you?

Sunder says this:

Quote:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

I don't see any requirement here that you need to be adjacent to the target weapon's holder. If the weapon is within your reach, why is it not a valid target?

A sunder maneuver is essential an attack against an object... the object needs to be within range, not the creature holding it.... no?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In place of a melee attack. If you aren't in range of your opponent, you can't make a melee attack against it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm getting some serious deja vu reading this thread...

Didn't this exact discussion just happen recently?

EDIT: Sure enough, about 6 months ago, and it was blahpers commenting back then, too.

Anywhom, yes, Strike Back is the feat you require.


Oh wow, check that out. And my attitude changed in the intervening months. I feel so Whitman, contradicting myself and containing multitudes and all that. : P


blahpers wrote:
In place of a melee attack. If you aren't in range of your opponent, you can't make a melee attack against it.

But you're not attacking your opponent...

You are attacking their weapon.


Drake Brimstone wrote:

I swear I've read it somewhere but can't find it now. Can you ready an action to attack the Weapon of some one attacking you with reach? If they are using a Natural weapon with Reach can you attack them?

I'm now being told it requires a feat (Strike Back), but from what I understood that feat relates to attacking a creature hitting you with a reach weapon as opposed to only being able to attack the weapon.

You must threaten someone to attack them if you don't have the strikeback feat. Many GM's allowed it in 3.5 as a houserule, but it was never an official rule.


wraithstrike wrote:
Drake Brimstone wrote:

I swear I've read it somewhere but can't find it now. Can you ready an action to attack the Weapon of some one attacking you with reach? If they are using a Natural weapon with Reach can you attack them?

I'm now being told it requires a feat (Strike Back), but from what I understood that feat relates to attacking a creature hitting you with a reach weapon as opposed to only being able to attack the weapon.

You must threaten someone to attack them if you don't have the strikeback feat. Many GM's allowed it in 3.5 as a houserule, but it was never an official rule.

He isn't trying to attack the person... that requires strike back feat.

He is trying to sunder the weapon. The weapon is most certainly within reach.


Remy Balster wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In place of a melee attack. If you aren't in range of your opponent, you can't make a melee attack against it.

But you're not attacking your opponent...

You are attacking their weapon.

A CMB is just an attack. You can not attack someone you don't threaten, and while you are technically attacking the weapon the attack is really against the person. That is why their CMD comes into play.

You can perform a sunder in place of a melee attack. You can't melee attack what you don't threaten. <----That is what the book says. So if you can't melee attack the opponent then there is no sunder.


Strike Back:

Quote:
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.

You could be fighting some massive giant who has a longspear and threatens out like 60'... and with Strike Back, you can ready an action to attack him when he attacks you. Actually hit this giant who is 60' away with your weapon in hand... How? No idea, but you can. That is what the feat allows.

But you can always ready an action to attack stuff that is in your reach. That giant never gets into reach of you... but his longspear most certainly does.


wraithstrike wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In place of a melee attack. If you aren't in range of your opponent, you can't make a melee attack against it.

But you're not attacking your opponent...

You are attacking their weapon.

A CMB is just an attack. You can not attack someone you don't threaten, and while you are technically attacking the weapon the attack is really against the person. That is why their CMD comes into play.

You can perform a sunder in place of a melee attack. You can't melee attack what you don't threaten. <----That is what the book says. So if you can't melee attack the opponent then there is no sunder.

Yes, you can sunder in place of an attack. But it doesn't say you must threaten the enemy to attack him. You can attack with an unarmed strike, which doesn't threaten at all ever. So... you're making that up.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can use a Sunder maneuver in place of an attack when using Strike Back.

Well, that's what you'd need to do, anyways.


Remy Balster wrote:

Strike Back:

Quote:
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.

You could be fighting some massive giant who has a longspear and threatens out like 60'... and with Strike Back, you can ready an action to attack him when he attacks you. Actually hit this giant who is 60' away with your weapon in hand... How? No idea, but you can. That is what the feat allows.

But you can always ready an action to attack stuff that is in your reach. That giant never gets into reach of you... but his longspear most certainly does.

If you could attack the spear due to its reach then you could attack the giant's arm due to your logic and strike back would not be needed anyway, since the giant's arm is part of the giant. This is rules 101. I am surprised you don't know this. A CMB is an attack, and you must threaten an opponent in order to attack.<---Yes, it is that simple.


Nefreet wrote:

You can use a Sunder maneuver in place of an attack when using Strike Back.

Well, that's what you'd need to do, anyways.

I understand that is what you are saying.

I am just not convinced that it is true.


wraithstrike wrote:
If you could attack the spear due to its reach then you could attack the giant's arm due to your logic and strike back would not be needed anyway, since the giant's arm is part of the giant. This is rules 101. I am surprised you don't know this. A CMB is an attack, and you must threaten an opponent in order to attack.<---Yes, it is that simple.

No you couldn't. Don't strawman me.

Anyway, you don't need to threaten someone to attack them. Fact.

You can repeat it all day long if you want but you are wrong.


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In place of a melee attack. If you aren't in range of your opponent, you can't make a melee attack against it.

But you're not attacking your opponent...

You are attacking their weapon.

A CMB is just an attack. You can not attack someone you don't threaten, and while you are technically attacking the weapon the attack is really against the person. That is why their CMD comes into play.

You can perform a sunder in place of a melee attack. You can't melee attack what you don't threaten. <----That is what the book says. So if you can't melee attack the opponent then there is no sunder.

Yes, you can sunder in place of an attack. But it doesn't say you must threaten the enemy to attack him. You can attack with an unarmed strike, which doesn't threaten at all ever. So... you're making that up.

Sorry, I misspoke.. You can not make an attack against an opponent you can't reach.

The result is still that your sunder idea fails.


wraithstrike wrote:

Sorry, I misspoke.. You can not make an attack against an opponent you can't reach.

The result is still that your sunder idea fails.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Haha. ^.^

My point is that sunder is targeting an object though. The object comes into your range. Why is it not a valid target?


Yeah I used the term threaten(which is for AoO's) when I should have used "reach". That is a mistake not a lie.

Quote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

Are you really going to say an attack roll is not attacking?

Since Sunder says the attack(sunder) is made in place of a melee attack then obviously you can only use sunder when you can make a melee attack.

Quote:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

So how are you going to sunder when you could not normally make a melee attack against the opponent, and to prove it is against the opponent see the following:

Quote:

If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

The target of the maneuver is the opponent, not the weapon.


The wording of Sunder itself tells us that the target is the item...

Quote:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack in place of a melee attack

You absolutely are attacking, but you are attacking an object. The object is in the possession of a creature, so it falls to Sunder rules to determine how to achieve success in hitting it. But, the object is the target. You don't damage the creature holding the object, you damage... the object.

That is why I don't understand why you or anyone is saying that RAW says that you cannot do it. RAW doesn't say you cannot do it. I cannot find anything that says it cannot be done.

We know you can attack objects. Fact. We know that if you attack an object that is held or carried you use the sunder maneuver to resolve it. Fact. We know the weapon is within your reach when it is being used to attack you. Fact.

So... why can it not be sundered?


You do sunder the item but the attack is made against the opponent(target). I just quoted it from the PRD.
If you need more quotes.

Quote:

Combat Maneuvers

During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Quote:

Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.

I am not saying it makes sense to not be able to attack a limb or weapons. I get your point, but by the rules the attack is against the opponent, and you have to be able to reach an opponent to attack him.

Now if you feel like the wording in Sunder is supposed to be an exception to the Combat Maneuvers and that line saying that it is against your target who gets an AoO is an error then feel free to FAQ it. However as written the attack is still against the opponent, even though you intend to damage the item.


You cant ignore RAW that specifically says it is against the creature just because the object takes the damage. If the creature is the target of the maneuver thems the breaks. At best you can argue there is a rules contradiction.

Grand Lodge

Anyone have the rules on attacking an unattended object vs an object being attended?

Not to mention that, if you really did allow a sunder attempt against the longspear/reach weapon of your opponent's choice, you have to take the wielder's CMD, then remove his size modifiers, and add in the size modifiers for the weapon, then a bonus for only being in range for a portion of the attack time...


wraithstrike wrote:

You do sunder the item but the attack is made against the opponent(target). I just quoted it from the PRD.

If you need more quotes.

Quote:

Combat Maneuvers

During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Quote:

Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.

I am not saying it makes sense to not be able to attack a limb or weapons. I get your point, but by the rules the attack is against the opponent, and you have to be able to reach an opponent to attack him.

Now if you feel like the wording in Sunder is supposed to be an exception to the Combat Maneuvers and that line saying that it is against your target who gets an AoO is an error then feel free to FAQ it. However as written the attack is still against the opponent, even though you intend to damage the item.

I just quoted it too, in which it clearly states that you can sunder an item. And neither of these two extra quotes adds weight to the idea that you are attacking the creature.

The first one is descriptive, and being disarmed by having your weapon demolished is most certainly being hindered. But it is indirect. The weapon is destroyed, which sucks for the dude who owned/used it.

The second one just describes CMB and CMDs, that isn't directly relevant.

I still think you need to make stuff up to decide that a sunder maneuver cannot be done on a reach weapon. I get why you might wanna make that ruling, but I don't see how it is RAW.


kinevon wrote:

Anyone have the rules on attacking an unattended object vs an object being attended?

Not to mention that, if you really did allow a sunder attempt against the longspear/reach weapon of your opponent's choice, you have to take the wielder's CMD, then remove his size modifiers, and add in the size modifiers for the weapon, then a bonus for only being in range for a portion of the attack time...

Objects that are not attended do not get CMD's. You attack the AC instead.

Quote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon....

The full rules are in this chapter--> Click me


Remy Balster wrote:
I just quoted it too, in which it clearly states that you can sunder an item. And neither of these two extra quotes adds weight to the idea that you are attacking the creature.

The quote that states you take an AoO from the target of your maneuver if you don't have Improved Sunder is directly relevant to sundering.


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You do sunder the item but the attack is made against the opponent(target). I just quoted it from the PRD.

If you need more quotes.

Quote:

Combat Maneuvers

During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Quote:

Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.

I am not saying it makes sense to not be able to attack a limb or weapons. I get your point, but by the rules the attack is against the opponent, and you have to be able to reach an opponent to attack him.

Now if you feel like the wording in Sunder is supposed to be an exception to the Combat Maneuvers and that line saying that it is against your target who gets an AoO is an error then feel free to FAQ it. However as written the attack is still against the opponent, even though you intend to damage the item.

I just quoted it too, in which it clearly states that you can sunder an item. And neither of these two extra quotes adds weight to the idea that you are attacking the creature.

The first one is descriptive, and being disarmed by having your weapon demolished is most certainly being hindered. But it is indirect. The weapon is destroyed, which sucks for the dude who owned/used it.

The second one just describes CMB and CMDs, that isn't directly relevant.

I still think you need to make stuff up to decide that a sunder maneuver cannot be done on a reach weapon. I get why you might wanna make that ruling, but I don't see how it is RAW.

One of my previous post said The TARGET of the sunder maneuver can make an AoO against you if you dont have improved sunder. Therefore the target had to be the enemy.

Did you not see it? If you did then how are you saying the creature is not the target? Who else is making that AoO?


Are wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
I just quoted it too, in which it clearly states that you can sunder an item. And neither of these two extra quotes adds weight to the idea that you are attacking the creature.

The quote that states you take an AoO from the target of your maneuver if you don't have Improved Sunder is directly relevant to sundering.

Thanks. I am glad somebody saw it.

edit: For those that missed it:

Quote:
If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.


”Improved Sunder” wrote:
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a sunder combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to sunder your gear.
”Greater Sunder” wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Sunder. Whenever you sunder to destroy a weapon, shield, or suit of armor, any excess damage is applied to the item's wielder. No damage is transferred if you decide to leave the item with 1 hit point.

These seem to strongly suggest that the item is the target of the sunder.


Smashing Objects rules wrote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.


Remy Balster wrote:
”Improved Sunder” wrote:
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a sunder combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to sunder your gear.
”Greater Sunder” wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Sunder. Whenever you sunder to destroy a weapon, shield, or suit of armor, any excess damage is applied to the item's wielder. No damage is transferred if you decide to leave the item with 1 hit point.

These seem to strongly suggest that the item is the target of the sunder.

once again

Official PRD wrote:
If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

Therefore the target had to be the enemy.

Who else is making that AoO?


"Breaking stuff rules wrote:
When a character tries to break or burst something with sudden force rather than by dealing damage, use a Strength check (rather than an attack roll and damage roll, as with the sunder special attack) to determine whether he succeeds.


Now Remy I have quoted the rules saying the TARGET of the sunder gets to make an AoO. I am waiting for a reply to that quote.

Here is the link if you missed it -->click me


wraithstrike wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
”Improved Sunder” wrote:
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a sunder combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to sunder your gear.
”Greater Sunder” wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to sunder an item. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Sunder. Whenever you sunder to destroy a weapon, shield, or suit of armor, any excess damage is applied to the item's wielder. No damage is transferred if you decide to leave the item with 1 hit point.

These seem to strongly suggest that the item is the target of the sunder.

once again

Official PRD wrote:
If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

Therefore the target had to be the enemy.

Who else is making that AoO?

So... what have we stumbled on, that the AoO is supposed to come from the item?

Haha...

Quote:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

Funny.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)


wraithstrike wrote:

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)

It leaves more than one option.


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)

It leaves more than one option.

Let me be clear. It leaves one other option about who is making the AoO.

If you have any answer other than the creature holding the weapon, once the weapon is eliminated as a possible option I would like to hear it.


wraithstrike wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)

It leaves more than one option.

Let me be clear. It leaves one other option about who is making the AoO.

If you have any answer other than the creature holding the weapon, once the weapon is eliminated as a possible option I would like to hear it.

How are you eliminating the item as an option?


FAQ wrote:

Reach and Objects: Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?

The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that cannot reach you, no matter what action you are taking, even if it includes reaching into a threatened space. Although it might seem realistic to allow an attack in such a case, it would make the game far too complicated.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.

The object(weapon) comes within your reach. You can affect it.


Incorporeal rules wrote:
An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.

This indicates that you can strike at the parts of a creature that moves into another creature's space when it attacks.

That seems pretty definitive...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)

It leaves more than one option.

Let me be clear. It leaves one other option about who is making the AoO.

If you have any answer other than the creature holding the weapon, once the weapon is eliminated as a possible option I would like to hear it.

I think this is one of those that just have to stand, wratihstrike and all the others are rigth and remy is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
That seems pretty definitive...

Take a look at the descriptive text of the Strike Back feat: "You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you."

While not really rules text, the descriptive text is indicative of what the feat is supposed to be able to do, and that certainly suggests that the game's designers believe you can't normally use sunder against the weapon of an opponent with greater reach than you, regardless of if you consider the weapon or the opponent the target.


wraithstrike wrote:

Now Remy I have quoted the rules saying the TARGET of the sunder gets to make an AoO. I am waiting for a reply to that quote.

Here is the link if you missed it -->click me

I know you did. I replied to you. The exact same text says that you sunder an item. It says both things. That is my point. We need to look elsewhere to determine which is written accurately, because it is very likely not both simultaneously. And if it is both simultaneously, we don't have rules for how to handle that situation.

Either we are attacking the weapon or the creature. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Greater Sunder etc. all reference attacking the item. Attack/Smashing/Breaking Object rules all reference attacks against items is handled with sunder maneuver.

It is highly prevalent that a Sunder Maneuver is the RAW method of attacking an object in the possession of another creature. But the item is the target. The item is what is being attacked, the item is what is taking damage, the item is what is possibly destroyed. The item. In all instances.

The only exception is the one line you quoted, where it makes reference to the target as getting an AoO. That doesn’t explicitly call out that it is referring to the item’s wielder, but we all know that is what it is likely talking about. Common sense ftw.

But just because we can apply common sense to a poorly worded ability doesn’t mean that it isn’t poorly worded. The Sunder Maneuver says that the item is that which is sundered, and says that the target of the maneuver gets an AoO. Are we to assume that the item and the item’s wielder are both simultaneously the target? That causes a TON of new question for how to make sense of that.

Ultimately, we know that creatures or objects within our reach can be affected. The rules say as much. We know that we can ready an action to attack when a ghost sweeps his cold undead hands through the floor… basically attacking his appendages as he extends them out of his space.

We know that these are possible; the rules outline them for us pretty clearly. So… where do the rules say that we cannot attack the creature’s weapon when it gets within our reach? It absolutely does get within reach. And, for that matter… where does it even say we cannot attack a creature itself if it attacks with natural reach with a readied action? If that bite attack is coming for you… he is most certainly in reach of your attack.
You’ve referenced a Feat… that seems to cover some of this. But the feat allows you to attack the wielder of a reach weapon himself. He doesn’t ever get into your reach… but you get to attack him directly with Strike Back.

That is what the feat does! So it isn’t even like the feat is redundant… so how is mentioning this feat even relevant??

What RAW text states that you cannot ready an action to attack an opponent (or their weapon) when they get into your reach as they attack you? I’ve quoted one that explicitly says you can in fact do exactly that.

Quote:
An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks.


If you are attacking the weapon and not the creature with reach then what is that weapon's AC and CMD? Seriously... What is it with all these threads lately with people blatantly disregarding the rules and calling it RAW?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't even need to get into the nitty-gritty of the language of Sunder.

You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.

Remy is one who believes the description/introductory language is part and parcel of how a feat or ability functions. The introductory language of Strike Back makes it clear that the purpose of the feat is to now be able to attack the weapons of someone who is attacking you from beyond your reach.

That the feat must explicitly state that this is the purpose demonstrates that the ordinary situation is that you cannot attack the weapons of someone who is attack you from beyond your reach. The exception that proves the rule and all that.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:


Remy is one who believes the description/introductory language is part and parcel of how a feat or ability functions. The introductory language of Strike Back makes it clear that the purpose of the feat is to now be able to attack the weapons of someone who is attacking you from beyond your reach.

Remy is one who always ignores the rules he doesn't like to come up with some really absurd positions. There are a number of effects in the game that target a creature but the effect is applied to one of its items. This is nothing new and everyone really understands that fact and I imagine that in all of those other cases Remy understands that as well but is only ignoring now because it doesn't fit his position.

Example:

PRD wrote:

Gravity Bow

School transmutation; Level ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 minute/level (D)
Gravity bow significantly increases the weight and density of arrows or bolts fired from your bow or crossbow the instant before they strike their target and then return them to normal a few moments later. Any arrow fired from a bow or crossbow you are carrying when the spell is cast deals damage as if one size larger than it actually is. For instance, an arrow fired from a Medium longbow normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if fired from a gravity bow. Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses your bow to make an attack the arrows deal damage as normal for their size.

The spell targets YOU but the effect is applied to items you are using. Likewiese, the sunder combat maneuver targets the CREATURE but the effect is applied to the weapon it is carrying. If you can't legally target the creature you can't sunder his weapon. Nothing at all confusing about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, this is pretty well settled. Remy has pointed out areas that could be taken either way by themselves and without context, but wraithstrike has shown that sunder does not normally target the item via reductio ad absurdum--if the item were the target, then sunder would never trigger an attack of opportunity, since items cannot take attacks of opportunity.

1 to 50 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Readying an action to attack some one with reach. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.