Do you have to move in a straight line for a spring attack? For example, with a charge attack the text says you have to move in a straight line towards your target but spring attack doesn't seem to have that restriction. Can you spring attack around corners?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you don't have to move in a straight line.
The only restrictions are that you must move at least 10', you cannot move more than your speed, and you cannot use Spring Attack to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the beginning of your turn.
Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action and requires a target. If you can not declare a target -as per not seeing it through a wall- you can not declare Spring Attack.
The movement is not required to be a straight line though.
I do not believe this is correct. There is nothing stopping you from running around that wall to perform the attack as long as you have a reasonable suspicion that there is a valid target behind the wall and the total distance moved is less than or equal to your movement. If you end up burning your spring attack and it just becomes movement, there is no harm in that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the idea is that if you declare spring attack on the enemy you think is around the corner, and don't see the target where you go, you have used your full round to take a single move, and wasted the rest of your potential actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Numarak,
There is nothing in the Spring Attack text that states you have to declare who you are attacking before you begin moving. This isn't a charge attack.
So, assuming a 30' move speed, we wind up with these possibilities:
1) Spend full-round action, move up to 30', attack a target, finish moving with remaining movement (not to exceed the remainder of the 30' movement available), full-round action is completed (still can use free/swift actions).
2) Spend full-round action, move up to 30', no target is available, full-round action is completed (still can use free/swift actions).
So yes, you can declare a full-round action spring attack, go around a wall and attack what is on the other side, or finding nothing, not.
Frankly, I really don't understand your problem. They are spending a full-round action to make a single move on the hopes there will be something to attack. Pretty bad choice if you ask me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My line of reasoning is simple: you declare full-round actions as a whole.
Except when you don't.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
So under at least that circumstance, you can make part of a full round action, see how that part of it turns out, and then decide if you want to continue with the full round action or switch it out to be a different action type.
I'm not saying that spring attack necessarily allows for the same thing, but it's not quite as black and white as you're making it out to be. I could see arguments either way.
Personally, I tend to be a "nice GM", in that I usually rule in favor of the players in ambiguous rules scenarios. In this case, I'd probably rule that a PC could start moving, see if there's a target for their spring attack, and then decide if their movement so far was a move action or part of an SA. Of course, that's if a PC was trying to do it. But once our group decided that was the rule, it would apply for monsters and NPCs, as well.
Okay, correct me if I am mistaken, the point of dispute is the idea that full actions must be declared completely at the outset. I know of no specific statement to generally prove or disprove this for any action type
We have language to tbe contrary in the description for full attack, but is this an overall principle or an exception? I know of no clarity on this, so I will table it for now.
If this is a specific requirement to spring attack it should be stated, it is not, so if it is a requirement it must be a general one.
Withdraw is therefore subject to this requirement, so withdraw cannot be used to blindly move around a corner to an unknown space, you need to guess where you can go. Indeed, since there is no reason to restrict this declaration requirement to full round actions, tbis applies to all move actions. Movement while blind or in total darkness will also be severely restricted.
My point about withdraw is that if full round actions, or any actions, must be fully declared, withdrawing or moving around corners gets real tricky. If this is not how withdraw or move work, then spring attack suffers no problems with corners either. If the "need to declare" principle is in effect, it has consequences way beyond spring attack, this is where I am going with my reasoning. For me, this kills the need to declare idea.
Yea, maybe it's just me.
I assume these 2 premises:
a) Spring Attack requires a target.
b) Spring Attack can't be declared in two different instances.Some of you agree that there is nothing in the rules that holds [a] true.
For me "and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack." implies [a].
I could be wrong.
---
And answering your first statement, I should point again to the FAQ.
"Spring Attack is a full-round action; it is not a move action, then an attack, and then another move action, it's one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle. ". If it is only "one continuos movement" then you have to declare it whole, for me makes no sense to declare "I move up there, and then when I check what's there, I decide what I'll do", that is exactly what the FAQ says Spring Attack is not: a move action, then an attack, and then another move action.---
That being said, I understand your point: there is no line in Spring Attack similar to "If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent." that is on Charge Action, although the way I understand combat, that line is superfluous, how can you trace a line from a point of space to another you can't see?
I'm not adamant on my stance. I gave my premises and my reasons, and accept that [a] could be a false premise for many.
The FAQ and my position are not in conflict. I did not state it is a move action, attack, and move action.
I stated it is movement (moving up to 30' in my example), an attack, and then remaining movement (moving up to the remainder of 30' in my example).That is a completely different statement. The terms move and movement are not the same as the term move action. Any number of actions that are not move actions allow you to move X distance.
So to your point A, Spring Attack does not indicate a target is required at the beginning.
If you want to see another feat which does indicate that, check Cleave and this FAQ.
The text is radically different.
To your point B, I don't understand what you mean by 'declared in two different instances'.
You declare it, you move, you make your attack (or not), you complete your move with the remaining movement available.
You are not declaring it twice.
From the way you have stated you think my example works I think the problem is conceptual for you.
I think you might be of the school of thought that you move from point A to point B and you cannot react to anything in-between until your action is completed. So which is true for you?
Example: A PC declares a move action and is intent on moving from point A to point B passing through point C. Near point C is a creature that has total cover from point A and B but not point C. (IE: creature is unseen until PC reaches the midpoint C.)
Do you:
1) Allow the PC to stop moving at point C so that he can then attack the creature?
2) Disallow the PC to stop moving at point C and force him to move to point B as was originally intended?
My guess is that you are in the school of thought that matches #2.
My point about withdraw is that if full round actions, or any actions, must be fully declared, withdrawing or moving around corners gets real tricky.I don't understand why you're stating this. Why do you think you can't move around a corner once you've decided to use a Withdraw?
Hmm, let me attempt to clarify.
Given: spring attack and withdraw are full round actions involving movement with no written LOS requirements.
Assumption: any requirement for declaration applies to these two equally.
So, if I can use withdraw to go around a corner and choose my path and end point after I get there and can see what the layout is, then I can spring attack around the corner, and choose my path after getting there. So if a full round action must be fully declared, blind withdraw becomes much more restricted and less useful.
Extension to move actions: we have no language making a distinction between action types and required amounts of declaration, therefore moving around corners with move actions also becomes restricted if full declaration is required.
This leaves the issue of target declaration for spring attack. If other aspects of actions do or do not require full declaration, it seems proper to me for attack targetting to follow the same principle. I do however see that this is my thinking, and not something with specific support or RAW, either for or against.
My point about withdraw is that if full round actions, or any actions, must be fully declared, withdrawing or moving around corners gets real tricky. If this is not how withdraw or move work, then spring attack suffers no problems with corners either. If the "need to declare" principle is in effect, it has consequences way beyond spring attack, this is where I am going with my reasoning. For me, this kills the need to declare idea.
Since you do not have to declare a full attack until after you have resolved the first attack your assertion is patently false.
Since you do not have to declare all of the targets of your full attack before you resolve the first one your assertion is patently false.
Since you do not have to declare the target of a 1 round casting time spell until it is completed your assertion is patently false.
It seems you dont need to specify the target of your attacks ahead of time for a full round action (Full attack action)
Full Attack
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. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
You can change targets as you go through your attack, even taking a 5' step to reach another target.
My point about withdraw is that if full round actions, or any actions, must be fully declared, withdrawing or moving around corners gets real tricky. If this is not how withdraw or move work, then spring attack suffers no problems with corners either. If the "need to declare" principle is in effect, it has consequences way beyond spring attack, this is where I am going with my reasoning. For me, this kills the need to declare idea.Since you do not have to declare a full attack until after you have resolved the first attack your assertion is patently false.
Since you do not have to declare all of the targets of your full attack before you resolve the first one your assertion is patently false.
Since you do not have to declare the target of a 1 round casting time spell ,until it is completed your assertion is patently false.
I am not asserting the need for declaration, I am discussing what I see as the consequences of full declaration being required. Full attacks already contain their own specific rule allowing "declare as you go", so how they work does not necessarily impact how these other abilities work.
Decisions about targets and such for spells are exicitly made when the spell comes into effect by the general magic rules, so full round spells are not relevant here either.
Again, note I am not asserting declaration is or is not required, I am talking about the consequences I see if it is.
I think I can see both sides of the argument. It seems to come down to how you visualize Spring Attack working. If you see it working like Flyby Attack (a monster feat) then it would make sense to allow a character to attack around corners. If you visualize it as a single action then they can't.
In our game I think we are going with the second option. Mostly because spring attacking around corners seems a bit too powerful and we don't want enemies doing it to us!
@Gauss:
Answering you, I'll answer '1'. Because You declare that you will move, which is a Move Action. Since you said that, you already used a "Move action of your round", however you'll use your movement is up to you. Usually, as I understand it, movement is used at 5-Foot increments, so, whenever the creature that goes from A to B decides to *finish* the Move Action, that creature can do so.
The problem here is what Java Man is starting to glimpse and others haven't yet, in N N 959 words: "I believe his is trying to connect dots on a FAQ which is, imo, simply telling us that if you are using Spring Attack, as soon as you move, you're committed to the Full Round action."
That is exactly what I'm saying, and which I believe the FAQ is saying: you can't, by no means, declare a Move Action to move, then, in the middle of your movement, declare a Standard Action and make a melee Attack, and finnally declare a Move Action and walk back. That is not how Spring Attack works.
You declare it as a whole, and yes you are committed to the whole thing, you also 'spend' a Full-Round Action activating it. I'm not saying what you can do. I'm pointing to what you can not do with a Spring Attack.
The argumentation around Full-Attack option is non-sense, because it is specified when you have to choose between using a Standard Action or a Full-Round Action: after the first attack and before the second.
For me, makes sense that, that the variables that constitute the difference between understanding that a Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action and not "a Move Action, a Standard Action and a Move Action", are declared in one instance, otherwise they would be indistinguishable. And we've been told in the rule and in the FAQ that Spring Attack is 1) A Full-Round Action. 2) One continuous movement with an attack in the middle; and is not 3) "A Move, a melee Attack and a Move."
For me, this problem is more related to how Full-Round Actions are declared. Spring Attack just happens to be one of those.
Regarding...
Ok, so we don't conflate the issues, you agree that yes, you can choose to react to the situation as you are moving. Ie: you can move in whatever direction you wish after each 5' increment of movement. Good.
Now, what prevents that during a Spring Attack?
Next, what prevents you from making an attack at any point along the spring attack?
Finally, would you please stop using the 'move action, standard action, move action' line of reasoning? It has ZERO bearing on this discussion and needlessly confuses the issue.
Nobody, is suggesting that a Spring Attack is equal to a move action, standard action, and move action.
It is a full-round action comprising of movement, an attack, and then the remainder of your movement.
We have determined that while moving you can determine each 5' step as you are making it and, in the absence of rules to the contrary, you can determine what creature (if any) you are attacking during the path of that movement provided it meets the criteria of having moved 10'.
If you want examples of abilities that require pre-determination of the target(s) those do exist. Namely, Cleave and Charge. This does not have wording similar to that.
And btw, if the rules worked the way you say they do, then full-round attacks would not allow you to resolve each attack before declaring the target of the next one. Heck, they wouldn't allow you to stop attacking after the first attack (which they do).
Spells would have to be fully defined when you declare the spell and they don't.
Frankly, the game does not work that way. The game does not require you to designate targets etc when you declare the action unless a rule specifically states otherwise (charge and Cleave). Spells don't do this and full-attacks don't do this.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to come down on the side that thinks it's okay to move around a corner and pick your target after you start moving, but there is also the fact that Spring Attack prevents (movement)AoOs from your target. For that to be useful against, say, targets with reach, you must be able to select a target before your enter it's threatened squares.
So you can pick a target before you start moving, but I don't think you must. Until you do pick a target, though, I don't think you can ignore AoOs.
|
|
You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react"
There is absolutely zero precedence for "continuous movement" being required, you can run up, hit, and then immediately run back the way you came.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You must declare that you are taking a full-round action for spring attack to make it.
If you declare you are making a spring attack, you are not forced to make an attack, if for example, you thought an enemy was around the corner, so you spring attack, move around the corner, and find your friend instead.
Note spring attack says you CAN move up to your speed and CAN make a single melee attack. You are not required to.
Because you are not required to make an attack, you are not required to declare the target of the attack. That said, if you turn the corner and find a giant, you would have to declare that you are going to attack them, to avoid provoking the AoO as you move through their reach, because spring attack only protects you from AoOs from a target, therefore you need to have a target to receive that benefit.
The way I interpret Spring Attack I think that you must pick the target before you start moving, otherwise Spring Attack won't be "one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle", because you would be choosing variables of that action amidst it, it would turn into "one continuous movement with the possibility of an attack happening in the middle".
I could be wrong.
Does Spring Attack require a target? I tend to think that answer is yes.
Does Spring Attack's target must be specified before you start the Spring Attack action (aka moving)? I tend to think that the answer is also yes.
It requires LoS? Yes.
The mechanics of other Full-Round actions do not clarify this one.
And yes, I could be wrong in the answer I give to all of those questions posed.
Neither the rules nor the FAQ back you up on this. So yes, you are wrong. :)
Think so. I've been wrong in the past, and I'll be wrong in the future, and I'm always stubborn.
Sometimes you do have to declare a full attack before the first attack, as in the case of two-weapon fighting. That still doesn't stop you from choosing a different target or taking a 5' step during any part of the round.
As to declarations and Spring Attack, I would not allow this:
PC: I move around the corner.
DM: There is an enemy there.
PC: I spring Attack!
I would, however, allow this:
PC: I Spring Attack around the corner in case there is an enemy there.
DM: No problem.
I think there are reasonable differences there.
Correct. If the open declaration is allowed, you are still stuck with what you declared. So spring attack with no target becomes a single move that you used a full round to perform.
|
The problem for me with the "spring attack a target I can't see and I am not sure exist" is this part of the feat:
"As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack."
So the ability allow me to move without causing an AoO from my target. Good if mi target has been selected from the start of the move.
Less good if I move, provoke an AoO from an unseen enemy for that movement and then select him as mi target.
I can see both sides of the issue and I am uncertain about what is right interpretation on how it work, but the point above make me lean in the "you can't select a target after starting your action" camp.
|
|
What you cannot do is Withdraw from an opponent that is invisible. That is a function of not being able to avoid an attack from someone you can't see. So if you're blinded, or all your enemies have total concealment, then your Withdraw is no better than a double move. It has nothing to do with not being able to see where you are going.
Where is this rule of "not being able to avoid an attack from someone you can't see"?
I don't know any piece of the rules saying that.
The AoO issue does make it murkier for me as well. A reasonable GM call could be that AoOs can be provoked becore your target is declared, if the "declare target after moving" idea is in use.
|
|
What you cannot do is Withdraw from an opponent that is invisible. That is a function of not being able to avoid an attack from someone you can't see. So if you're blinded, or all your enemies have total concealment, then your Withdraw is no better than a double move. It has nothing to do with not being able to see where you are going.
Where is this rule of "not being able to avoid an attack from someone you can't see"?
I don't know any piece of the rules saying that.Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can't withdraw from combat if you're blinded.
The first part don't stop you from using the withdraw action. It stop it from working against the people you can't see.
I had completely forgot the second part, thanks.
The AoO issue does make it murkier for me as well. A reasonable GM call could be that AoOs can be provoked becore your target is declared, if the "declare target after moving" idea is in use.Spring Attack only avoids AoO's from the target you are attacking (declared you are attacking). Everyone else who is not the target of Spring Attack, can take an AoO against you.
Exactly, again my curse of trying for brevity. I mean that before you declare your target they can still make an AoO, non-targets aren't effected at all, whatever way declaration timing is ruled.
|
|
The first part don't stop you from using the withdraw action.Not being able to Withdraw against an invisible target is the same as the target getting to attack you even if you Withdraw.
But you can still use the action. That can be useful if there are multiple opponents and not all of them are invisible. Or if you have abilities that trigger when using the Withdraw action.
There isn't a separate declaration step in pathfinder. The only restriction is that when you use an action, you have to declare what that action is, but you don't have to declare any parts of that action until it is time to take them.
For example, have three attacks and are next to two foes. You declare a full attack action, and state you are attacking the first foe. After that attack is resolved, you can decide whether you want your second attack to go at the same foe again or against the other one. You don't have to declare ahead of time.
Similarly with spring attack and a corner. You declare spring attack, and move around the corner, if there isn't a target you can keep moving until you get to one, making that your spring attack target. If you don't get to one, you won't get to attack (and you also won't have the option to take any other standard action or a second move action.)