...yeah. I don't see why not. You would have to get two different pieces of terrain adjacent to them (such as a corner), but I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Constant flanking that requires 4 feats and 13 int and is dependent upon terrain. Also it's ruined if any other ally gets adjacent to your target. I can think of far easier ways to get flanking earlier and with less rigid requirements.
As a DM, I would rule that the floor can only count as one ally for the purposes of gang up.
I was about to post this as an alternate question:
Press to the Wall + Mouser Swashbuckler
Am I now flanking with the floor without needing allies?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was established in this thread that Press to the Wall would allow you to flank with the floor, if you are in a flanking position (in this case, above your opponent).
A thread with a total of 3 replies, by people of no particular reputation or authority, with no attempt to disprove the original claim, does not in any way count as establishing anything.
First of all, there is no precedent for treating the floor as "solid, immovable objects that occupy a square". Ricochet Shot, another feat that interacts with design, doesn't seem to allow floor or ceiling ricochets.
Second, the introduction to the feat says "You gain an advantage when your opponent can’t easily retreat". That is not in itself rules text, but it is an important guideline to interpretation. In your case, the target would still have his full 7 possible directions of movement, and the feat tells us that in this case, it should not provide the benefit. If you are flying above the target, he has 8 directions of movement; he can't 5-foot step out of your threatened area, but that's not the important distinction (because on a flat surface, a diagonal pillar flank will let him step to safety, but a straight-line pilar flank won't).
Third, even if the second point is not taken into consideration, and you are considered to be flanking with the ground while flying above the target, that does not necessarily (meaning "at all") allow you to bring that exception with you when you no longer meet the requirements. That is, "you can flank with the ground while flying" does not mean "you can flank with the ground while standing on it".
|
I was about to post this as an alternate question:
Press to the Wall + Mouser Swashbuckler
Am I now flanking with the floor without needing allies?
This would be terribly good for Mouser multiclassed with Sneak Attack granting classes, especially Kitsune Fox Shape builds that get Tiny sized benefits. ;)
This would be terribly good for Mouser multiclassed with Sneak Attack granting classes, especially Kitsune Fox Shape builds that get Tiny sized benefits. ;)
That's just what I was...
Hey, wait a minute!
I'm personally most comfortable with the "Floor counts as a single ally" approach. That makes the most sense (the ground is one thing, really, not multiple things. I'm pretty sure a wall would count as a single ally with this feat, and a pillar (even three+ squares high) would count as a single ally, etc.
That interpretation also works quite well with the mouser idea. :P
If it weren't for the gang-up requirements, it wouldn't be too bad to go after. As it is... four feats to get what you're after (with only marginal benefits other than the flanking thing) doesn't sound worth it unless you're a fighter, have no reliable flanking partner, and have more feats than you know what to do with.
The ultimate answer is going to be up to your GM: I wouldn't base a build on this until I got my GM's OK in advance. (In PFS, I would assume this would not work, with very little table variation.)
Here's why I expect you to have issues:
First, the intent is clearly that the solid object is blocking one direction of the enemy's movement, and the floor is not usually considered to do so. (Pathfinder doesn't account for three dimensions very well in melee.) Of course, if your opponent is flying, then the floor would reasonably be considered to block the opponent's movement (but you'll need to be above them in that case).
Second, the list of suggested/example obstacles ("such as columns, tree trunks, and walls") only include a) vertical items and b) things that are generally assumed to be at least as tall as the opponent. If it included something like a table, large chair, or even a boulder, you might have a better argument.
If you can convince your GM, have fun! If PFS, I'd expect the reaction to be somewhere between "LOL! No way!" and "Interesting...but no."
What I was thinking of was using it with two different squares of the floor, because a square of floor is a solid, immovable object that occupies a square.
Firstly, as already pointed out, this was not established in your previous thread. Not by any stretch of the imagination and I seriously doubt that it will be. If you read the rules associated with movement through squares and the section on terrain and obstacles, they are written with the idea that a battle grid is laid over the surface of the ground to measure tactical movement. This is not a 3D grid of 5'x5'x5' cubes extending up into the air and down into the ground. Instead, it's a 2D grid of 5'x5' squares overlaid on the surface of the ground. These squares do not have an explicit ceiling, as they are not 3D areas of space; a thing can occupy a square of the grid and extend to any height (for instance: 6' tall human, or 8' tall half-orc, or 12' tall pillar; each of which only occupy one square on the ground). Where the rules do speak about moving in 3 dimensions (flying or burrowing), it speaks in terms of movement speed, not squares. I must reiterate that the battle grid is a system of measuring 2D grid of 5'x5' spaces (or squares) overlaid on the ground to measure tactical movement and no square has a pre-determined height above the ground or down into the ground.
Miniatures are on the 30mm scale—a miniature of a 6-foot-tall man is approximately 30mm tall. A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.
"5-foot by 5-foot," by definition represents a flat, 2D space. If you are able to find anything that would indicate that the rules split the battle space into a series of 5-foot by 5-foot by 5-foot, 3D cubes stacked on top of each other into the air and under the ground, I would be happy to read it.
This would mean that no special positioning would be required as long as the opponent is standing on the ground, because they have multiple squares of floor adjacent to them at all times.
Secondly, absolutely not. Not a chance. Again, squares do not extend into the ground, they are a 2D grid of tactical measurements overlaid on the surface of the ground. They can be occupied by a thing standing in a particular square but are not, themselves, 3 dimensional spaces. As such they cannot extend up or down, they are flat laying on the surface of the ground.
This is not to say you can't use Gang Up with Press to the Wall. It just means the ground doesn't count. You could still use this combination to flank a guy stuck between a wall and a pillar, or in a 5' wide hallway, or something like that.
Come on. Does the phrase "constant flanking" really not even get a reaction these days?
Thirdly, this statement makes it sound like you are aware this whole thing is BS.
|
I find the argument that D&D is not 3 dimensional completely wrong. I can flank attack a flying enemy by having an ally above or below it, in any geometry. Ditto a swimming enemy. You can't change that basic fact just because you don't like a feat that makes solid objects into allies. If you have press to the wall and are above an enemy, the floor qualifies as a flank-buddy. If you are below the enemy and he's next to the ceiling, ditto. Any other ruling will be met with rolled eyes by anybody who has ever engaged in a flying or swimming combat and used flanking. A GM might still rule this way and you might be stuck with it, but they'd be wrong, and it's worth talking to them after the game about it.
I go with the assumption that each object in a plane is a single, distinct object, not a series of smaller objects.
A wall is a single object, a giant ally
A floor is a single object, a giant ally
A ceiling is a single object, a giant ally
A pillar is a single object, a giant ally
Normally this is a distinction without a difference for the feat (floor only is an ally if you are flying or having higher ground, ceiling only an ally if you're beneath the target and ceiling is next to it), as you have to position properly for Press to the Wall to work.
Here's a thought experiment to run by the GM.
"If my enemy is between two pillars, can I combine Gang Up and Press To The Wall".
Your usual answer will be "yes". If it is not, the GM is either ruling that all Press to the Wall allies count as a single ally ("the room is an ally, as is everything touching it") or that somehow invoking two solid objects breaks the "and no other allies" restriction of the feat. Either one seems a bit dubious to me, but it isn't going to be proved wrong at the table so it's pointless to argue.
If that is true, then a 5' corridor should provide the ability to Gang Up (two "allied" walls). Seriously, walls, floors and ceilings are identical objects if the geometry is right.
A more interesting edge condition is a doorway. The other dude has two walls next to him (to his right, to his left, diagonal and facing you). Are they one "ally" or two? Does it matter if the ceiling is as tall as the door (breaking up two walls) or if the ceiling is higher (the wall is continuous, except for the door?
Frankly if I was a GM, I'd err on the side of the player who burned 4 feats on the trick. If I am a player and the GM rules against it, well, if it isn't a 5' corridor I can always shift 5' and get a flank because there isn't a second wall blocking me, if I'm in a doorway I call two buddies over and get sneak attack via Gang-up by itself, as it's fairly likely we're in a choke point anyway. I'd be kind of annoyed if press to the wall didn't work vs floor and ceiling when I'm flying or vs a flying foe and have the right flank position, since those are solid objects in the correct geometry, but most cases where you have two such objects next to an enemy, you can just plain get the flank without gang-up, or, in worst case, can call a couple buddies over to help out.
So I think in PFS play, you'd get your sneak attack one way or the other in most situations.
|
I find the argument that D&D is not 3 dimensional completely wrong. I can flank attack a flying enemy by having an ally above or below it, in any geometry.
Sadly the argument is correct, in a technical sense.
It makes total sense that you could flank a flying enemy from above and below. But there are no rules for doing so, because the flanking rules are defined in terms of square edges and corners. Not cubes.
So while I agree that you should be able to, it's just not defined in the rules.
I find the argument that D&D is not 3 dimensional completely wrong.
To start, I did not say D&D, nor Pathfinder, was 2D. I was specific in saying the "battle grid" was a 2D system of measurement. If you can produce any RAW to the contrary I'd be happy to read it. I might even be satisfied if you could quote in the rules how many squares high a Giant is, or how many above ground level squares a Dragon threatens.
That said, your argument makes sense and is logical. I am not saying it's unreasonable for a GM to allow flanking with an ally who's above or below an enemy. I have done 3D fights too. However, the rules are not written to accommodate that. The battle grid is not a real, tangible thing; nor is it a 3D space. It is a 2D system of measurement overlaid on the surface of the ground. So it would be an error, IMO, to assume the writer of the feat was designing this feat to accommodate non-existent 3D squares when he wrote this:
Benefit: If you are the only character threatening an opponent, you can treat solid, immovable objects that occupy a square (such as columns, tree trunks, and walls) and are adjacent to that opponent as allies threatening the opponent when determining whether you flank the foe.
Now if we decide to run a 3D fight, I think it would be perfectly legitimate to allow someone who is above an enemy to flank with someone on the ground if they are in proper position. Same with water fights, or whatever. However, that is a house-ruled case that the core combat rules were not designed for and the feat in question was certainly not designed for. How any GM would rule that is up to them and I think what you said above is perfectly reasonable:
A wall is a single object, a giant ally
A floor is a single object, a giant ally
A ceiling is a single object, a giant ally
A pillar is a single object, a giant ally
One thing I would not allow in my games is what the OP was asking:
What I was thinking of was using it with two different squares of the floor, because a square of floor is a solid, immovable object that occupies a square.
This would mean that no special positioning would be required as long as the opponent is standing on the ground, because they have multiple squares of floor adjacent to them at all times.
This is absolutely not legitimate and I stand by what I posted above as a counter to this question.