Can a character full attack an empty square to utilise effect like "Shield of Swings" and gain shield bonus against ranged attacks?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seems legit to me. There's no requirement to deal damage or even hit with your attacks to gain the bonus, so why not. Attacking an empty square is allowed in the rules and it happens a lot when fighting mobile, invisible creatures, so there should be no problem with that either. Trying to visualize it, I suppose it'll look much like Conan doing the 8 pattern defensive.. thing with his sword. :)
No. The intent it to attack a creature, and attacking an invisible enemy is not attacking an empty square. You just missed the enemy. That is different from using a full round action to "pretend" you were attacking to get benefits as if you were attacking.
What is "fighting mobile"?
Hmm. I know you can attack a sqare with thrown weapon (AC 5) or "attack" with grappling hook (ample places AC 5), so looking for any rules that prohibid (or allow) attacking square with twohander and doing wuxia deflecting bladespin thingy.
Would I, as a GM let you? Questions like this would always come down to whether it makes sense in-game.
Shield of Swings is absolutely ridiculous to begin with. It proposes that someone swinging a sword in a circular motion while also attacking two or more people can somehow gain as good a shield bonus than someone taking their time and fighting behind a tower shield. Making matters worse, the individual pulling off this stunt could actually be a novice combatant: a 1st level Fighter benefitting from a Haste spell, for instance, suddenly becomes just as secure behind his spinning sword (which, by the way, is not spinning that fast) as someone hiding behind a shield big enough to cover their entire body.
That having been said, it is an actual Feat. It's a legal part of the game, and I have to answer the question as such.
Personally, I think its application makes more sense when you're actually not attacking someone - since at least then you could argue that you're focusing your sword-swings entirely toward defense, as opposed to dropping your bizarre form of defense to strike at your foes.
That having been said, don't be surprised if certain individuals try to deny you this from a purely legal point of view. How? Let's look at the definition of the Full Attack action:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
So, Full Attack is a full-round action that allows you to make more than one attack in a round. Now, let's look at the definition of the attack action:
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
The Full Attack action is contingent on making attacks, which someone could argue is contingent on attempting to strike an opponent. Thus, that same someone could tell you can't attack an empty square because you're technically not attacking anyone. I personally rely on a hybrid of common sense and fun when determining my rulings, but I've also noticed - at least on these forums - that epic disagreements can arise from opposing interpretations of words as simple as "can".
Good luck!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No. The intent it to attack a creature, and attacking an invisible enemy is not attacking an empty square. You just missed the enemy. That is different from using a full round action to "pretend" you were attacking to get benefits as if you were attacking.
What is "fighting mobile"?
Fight -ing (gerund) + mobile (="moving, capable of moving", a qualifier for the noun "creatures"). In other words, creatures that are both invisible and moving around a lot may often be in other squares than where you'd expect them to be.
I'm not saying that you have to pretend to be a paranoid person who's always hitting empty squares to get the bonus. I'm only saying there's a precedent in the rules for attacking empty squares, and there's no mention of intent having any effect on whether it counts as an attack or not.
If you want to apply realism (not always advisable in rules arguments, but let's try..), it's actually a lot easier to focus on blocking incoming ranged attacks when other people are not trying to hit you.
Lastly, if you spend one of your precious feats and use your full-round action to do nothing to get +4 on AC, it's not terribly unbalanced either, is it?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
One more thing came to mind -- in ~99% of combat situations, there's something within your reach that you can attack in melee. You can full-attack objects, a door, a lot of things. Even if you don't consider attacking empty squares rules-legal, you'll have hard time convincing anyone that you cannot full-attack unattended objects.
However, that would be utterly silly, if legit. I'd much prefer the guy swinging his sword like Conan in front of him than someone bashing pottery to get an AC bonus.
I guess I should reword my previous statement. RAW it probably works, but if you are not the GM then don't be surprised if he says no.
Is there some reason this is a better idea than total defence?
Is there some reason this is a better idea than total defence?
If one is denied their Dex (which inadvertantly would deny any Dodge Bonuses they receive), Shield of Swings would still grant them an AC Bonus they would desire, since it's a Shield Bonus to AC, not a Dodge Bonus.
I'll also point out that RAW, one can Fight Defensively while doing this, getting a +2 Dodge AC on top of the +4 Shield AC from Shield of Swings.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess I should reword my previous statement. RAW it probably works, but if you are not the GM then don't be surprised if he says no.
I agree, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone objected because "attacking an empty square" seems silly at face value. But of course, if you visualize it in a different way, such as assuming a defensive posture or performing defensive maneuvers, it seems less silly. Especially if you consider the other options, such as attacking every unattended object within reach. Or having a "spank buddy" that hangs around just so you can make non-lethal attacks against him to get the bonus ...uh.
But yeah, I suppose it's courteous to check with the GM before trying it.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Attacks are in general made against opponents, but you are allowed to attack the square you think an invisible opponent may be in.
Besides opponents, you can also attack objects and allies (or neutral creatures). See my reply above for examples of the silliness that may ensue if you ban attacking empty squares.
|
I think this requires the wording of the feat's benefit:
When you take a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon, you can choose to reduce the damage by 1/2 to gain a +4 shield bonus to AC and CMD until the beginning of your next turn. The reduction in damage applies until the beginning of your next turn.
I have to ask, why would you want to burn a full round action attacking an empty square? It seems to me that wasting that full round might worth allowing this. Is there any real abuse?
Sounds like Kalthanan tried to explain this, but I don't quite understand it without seeing the numbers - and I'm not sure it takes into account wasting the full round action.
I'll also point out that RAW, one can Fight Defensively while doing this, getting a +2 Dodge AC on top of the +4 Shield AC from Shield of Swings.
I have to ask, why would you want to burn a full round action attacking an empty square? It seems to me that wasting that full round might worth allowing this. Is there any real abuse?Sounds like Kalthanan tried to explain this, but I don't quite understand it without seeing the numbers - and I'm not sure it takes into account wasting the full round action.
This is my character who have 3 ranks in Acrobatics and Crane Style + Shield of Swings wich gives him:
+4 dodge and +4 shield to AC-2 to attacks and half damage
essentialy making him a "tank mode" if he can full-attack to use this in case the actual "tank" get screwed. He would be much more effective Power Attacking with a greatsword anyway, but i like versatile characters as opposed to ones that excel at one thing.
Actual fighter with a tower shield tho can enchant it and while having -2 penalty he does not halve his damage and can use feats like Shield Focus for even greater effect.
This particual instance was when bunch of people from approaching ship rained arrows and this character tried to provided cover to more squishy ones. I just wanted to know if that is allowed because i have kind of rule-lawyering attitude toward myself.
P.S. I feel anger of many people who see "greatsword" and "crane style" in one sentence.
All I'd say is this: If you ban attacking empty squares to gain the benefit of this feat, then I'm casting invisibility more often... "No he can't attack that square to try and figure out whether I'm in it because he is not allowed to attack empty squares"
That is terrible logic, and it won't fly. Trying to actually attack someone is nowhere near attacking the ground or the air so I would just say you must legitimately try to target/attack an enemy.
PS: Trying to rules lawyer the GM when you know his intent is an auto-loss. Many GM's won't argue with you. They will just say no, and you can then decide to play or not play.
Please dont ask your GM such kind of questions! It is a waste of lifetime and playtime for you, your GM and your group.
Back in D&D 3 days someone wanted to grapple an empty square to gain concealment (old rule from D&D3, attacking in a grapple has a 50-50 chance to hit the wrong target).. we wasted the rest of the session with stupid discussions.
So dont ask such kind of questions!
Addition and sarkasm:
Attacking diminutive creatures like flies is only possible if you detect them via a successful perception check as a move action.
My GM is ok with this, i wonder about the RAW because you can throw thins into sqare and you can attack a sqare that suspect invisble creature is. Even if you dont know where it is by perception you can still slash at the doorway if you think it will run away - if GM disallow this then is wierd.
Unless you have like 7 int and 7 wis
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
All I'd say is this: If you ban attacking empty squares to gain the benefit of this feat, then I'm casting invisibility more often... "No he can't attack that square to try and figure out whether I'm in it because he is not allowed to attack empty squares"That is terrible logic, and it won't fly. Trying to actually attack someone is nowhere near attacking the ground or the air so I would just say you must legitimately try to target/attack an enemy.
PS: Trying to rules lawyer the GM when you know his intent is an auto-loss. Many GM's won't argue with you. They will just say no, and you can then decide to play or not play.
I agree; the less silliness and metagaming, the better. But as far as I can tell, attacking empty squares is not an invalid option by RAW, and if you're applying common sense or realism, wildly swinging around to get +4 AC vs melee AND ranged attacks is just as silly whether there are opponents around you or not.
The fault is with the feat, not this particular application of the feat.
Anyways, since it's a slightly contentious issue, I'd advise checking with the GM before trying it.
|
I think it's reasonable to use this on the empty air.
Flavorwise you're swinging around with a sword, making it hard to get close to you. That still makes sense if an enemy is at 20ft and going to charge you next round. Likewise if you're worried about an invisible enemy creeping up at you. Or if you're surrounded by a mob of goblins trying to gather their courage to attack you from all sides.
Mechanically, you're not getting any additional benefit; you're still paying all the costs (actions, damage penalties in case you get AoOs later on in the round).
Likewise, I'd allow someone to Fight Defensively by spending a Standard action, even if there was no enemy in range. It gives less bonus than Full Defense, but you continue to threaten. The player is still paying all the costs. Idem for Combat Expertise.
|
Can a character full attack an empty square to utilise effect like "Shield of Swings" and gain shield bonus against ranged attacks?
RAW - Yes, you certainly can. The AC of the empty square is 5 I believe. I'd hate to see what happened if you rolled a 1...
RAI - I would think your GM would want good reasoning. Perhaps use it as a display of skill? You'd certainly look a little silly flailing at the air.
Well monks can deflect arrows with bare hands, skilled fighters can deflect them with shield (Missile Shield feat), so i might as well do something like this but with greatsword XD
With a 'Yes you can' to the main question you create room for a lot of follow up questions like is an empty square a target for 'greater cleave' ?
A 'No you cannot' is short and simple.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
With a 'Yes you can' to the main question you create room for a lot of follow up questions like is an empty square a target for 'greater cleave' ?
A 'No you cannot' is short and simple.
You do have a point there, I do very much prefer the simplest solution when in doubt.
However...
You don't get additional attacks with Greater Cleave unless you hit a foe (that is adjacent to the previous one and also within reach).
Shield of Swings has no such requirement. It only mentions taking "a full-attack action while wielding a two-handed weapon".
Also, it has already been established that you can attack empty squares as per the rules about invisibility. "What qualifies as a situation where you have the right to assume that there is an invisible creature nearby" is a follow-up question that is much harder to answer than the one about Greater Cleave, for example. The rules don't define an "invisible creature situation" where empty spaces suddenly become valid targets. So, I have to disagree with you about which answer is simpler.
I simply cannot fathom why the wild swings you take with Shield of Swings would be any less effective when there isn't an (invisible) creature nearby. Though I think it's more useful to visualize it as a defensive posture rather than pointless attacks.
Anyway, I'm not adamant on that it should work one way or another. This is just my interpretation of how it should work. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If flavored with "There's an invisible enemy there!", it would not only be thematic, but possibly hilarious.
Imagine an enemy bluffed the Fighter, into thinking there is an invisible enemy there.
Would there even be an outcry?
That would be hilarious indeed. :D The funniest part would be that by bluffing the Fighter, the enemy would be unwittingly giving the Fighter the "right" to attack empty spaces even when no-one's near.. surely this must be the correct interpretation. ;-)
Motivation is everything. [/humor]
I'm in the 'no bonus effects if you aren't attacking a legitimate threat' category.
I'm attacking the darkness!!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm in the 'no bonus effects if you aren't attacking a legitimate threat' category.This means you reveal the presence, or absence, of a threat.
This. And "legitimate threat" isn't a game term so it's hard to adjucate. Not to mention legitimate threats are never mentioned in the rules text regarding the feat, attacking, or invisibility.
E.g. when exactly does an invisible assassin cease to be a legitimate threat if he disengages from combat but remains lurking "somewhere out there", ready to kill you whenever you let your guard down?
I think a consistent effect regardless of the situation is better than the inconsistency (and metagaming) that follows if you ban attacks vs no target, especially when the rules seem to support it. And +4 AC for wasting all your actions in a round except swift and free actions isn't overpowered as has been pointed out.