If a creature wielding a reach weapon, a glaive, for example, is standing directly adjacent to an opponent, does she threaten that opponent? Can they contribute to flanking with an ally on the opposite side of the opponent?
If that same creature with the glaive is standing adjacent to a large opponent, does she threaten the large opponent? Can she flank the large opponent if an ally is standing directly opposite her, adjacent to the large opponent?
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
So, 1st case: you threaten the opponent and contribute to your ally's flanking (and flank it yourself).
2nd case: I'm not sure if you can actually attack the opponent, anyway I would say that you don't flank because you don't threaten "your" side of the enemy.
I direct your attention to the following rules.
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).
Granted, under Attacks of Opportunity...
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.
This might seem to contradict the first, although if you look here, and scroll down, you'll see that a glaive still threatens more squares, even not counting those adjacent to the character. And we come back to the natural understanding of "threatening with a reach weapon" here...
Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures: [...] Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. 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. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.
In all, I don't see how the rules permit an understanding that a glaive threatens or contributes to flanking from an adjacent square, regardless of the opponent's size.
A creature with a reach weapon (and no other means of attacking such as armor spikes) does not threaten an adjacent creature. If you do not threaten, you do not provide flanking.
As for the second question...it's a little iffy.
I lean to no because reach says:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
So you can't attack at the 5ft square, but you also can't attack creatures that are too close (in the adjacent square) even if parts of them aren't in that 5ft square. I imagine it as their bulk gets in the way of your weapon reaching that part where it could otherwise hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) The Glaive does not threaten the squares directly adjacent to it
2) You can attack an adjacent large creature with a reach weapon, but it will have partial cover against you.
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Big Creatures and Cover
Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
Partial Cover
If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.
The only squares you can pick are blocked by a creature (the rest of the large creature), however more than half of the creature is visible so it gets only partial cover against the attack (aka +2 to AC).
I think the "can't attack adjacent foes (those within 5')" negates the idea that you could attack the other side of the creature. This is a very specific statement. Conceptually, the space you need to wield the weapon is blocked by the creature. The partial cover rules are for other attacks that are not impossible (illegal), otherwise the normal reach rules would never apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the soft cover rules allow you to pick which part of a large creature you attack in melee. If you pick a square that you actually threaten with a reach weapon, which is allowed by the soft cover rules for large creatures then attack is perfectly legal. The notion of "the space you need to wield the weapon [being] blocked by the creature" is represented by the +2 they get to their AC due to soft cover. It is mechanically more difficult to hit them because they are standing so close, but not impossible because they are large enough to hit anyway.
I'll give you another example. If you are surrounded by adjacent allies and there is a large creature in the threat range of your reach weapon you may still hit them with partial cover. There is a feat specifically to negate the soft cover provided by allies in this case called Phalanx Formation which shows that reach weapons follow the soft cover rules.
The problem is that the reach weapon rules prohibit you from attacking a creature adjacent to you. While larger creatures occupy squares that you could theoretically attack, they are still adjacent.
The soft cover rules don't mention reach weapons or larger creatures at all, so I don't see how they would change anything. I agree they would apply and grant the +4 cover bonus if the attack was allowed in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
What do you mean they don't mention reach weapons or larger creatures? What do you call this section specifically calling out how to handle melee attacks against larger creatures in the Soft Cover rules? (lol)
Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
The fact that there is a feat that lets you negate soft cover AC on reach weapon attacks also shows that reach weapons use the soft cover rules... I really don't understand how you can claim that they don't.
Taking into account the idea of closer portions of a large creature getting in the way of being able to effectively use a weapon with reach (i.e. the shaft of the weapon bumps into part of the creature before the bladed bit does) I can understand both arguments:
1) for the imposition of a +2 cover bonus to the target's AC, and
2) inability to use the weapon effectively at all.
I lean toward the first interpretation.
Do the rules not say that you attack 'an opponent', 'a creature', 'a foe'? I don't remember seeing anywhere that you choose the square of a large or larger creature to attack. If they do please quote I could well be wrong.
A large creature adjacent to you cannot therefore be attacked with a reach weapon.
The soft cover rules allow you to choose a square to determine cover but do not alter the fact that it must first be a valid target for your attack.
You are making a critical mistake here. You don't threaten creatures, you threaten squares.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Your threatened squares are determined by the properties of the weapon you are using. Any squares you threaten are valid for attacking, unless there is something blocking your line of sight or your line of effect to the square in which case you refer to the concealment or cover rules respectively.
We can follow that exact path of reasoning in the case of an adjacent large creature and reach weapon. Your reach weapon says that you threaten the further squares of the large creature, and since part of the creature is blocking your line of effect to your threatened squares you must refer to the cover rules. The cover rules say you may pick any square of a large creature to determine if it has cover against you. In this case both of the squares you threaten have cover against your attack, however the creature is more than half visible so it is only partial cover.
The critical part is that you are still not allowed to attack an adjacent creature. There is nothing in the cover section that lifts this restriction. I really like playing reach builds and would love to be able to attack large creatures more often, but it seems like the rules forbid it and thats what I tried to say earlier. Sorry for being unclear.
That being said while you are supposedly not allowed to attack the creature, you might indeed grant flanking by the virtue of threatening a relevant square. You are not allowed to attack the creature and due to the cover you couldn't perform an attack of opportunity either way but the rules don't require you to be able to attack, merely to threaten.
This means the answer to the original question #2 might be indeed that you grant flanking, as you threaten one of the creatures squares. But I'm not sure it is intended to work that way, as it is anything but intuitive to threaten something you can't attack and I still believe you can't.
In the end it might be worth to get an FAQ on the issue, as the whole "not being able to attack adjacent creature" could simply be a result of the rules being often written for medium creatures with other sizes being an afterthought at best. But with some reach weapons like the longspear you will run into narrative trouble if you say a creature merely grants itself cover. You'd have to trust your spear through a creatures torso to reach its back so to speak, effectively attacking an adjacent square.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Just because the creature's big behind sticks out further than five feet doesn't change the fact that his face is too close. Too close to effectively use your polearm at him.
As for flanking, the rules talk two ways about this. To flank you have to threaten the creature, while for AoOs you need to threaten the square.
I don't think it's reasonable to say you're threatening a creature that you can't attack. Thus, you can't flank it.
2 diagonals is 10' away, as far as reach weapons are concerned.
With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).Just because the creature's big behind sticks out further than five feet doesn't change the fact that his face is too close. Too close to effectively use your polearm at him.
It does when you're not trying to hit his face, you know, like in this exact case...
It does when you're not trying to hit his face, you know, like in this exact case...With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).Just because the creature's big behind sticks out further than five feet doesn't change the fact that his face is too close. Too close to effectively use your polearm at him.
Except that the rule system is too abstract to reflect that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, the reach weapon rules do not allow you to attack (with the reach weapon) a creature that is adjacent.
The reach weapon rules regarding cover do not provide an exception to that rule.
No amount of dancing around the reach weapon rules will change that. You simply cannot do it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that same creature with the glaive is standing adjacent to a large opponent, does she threaten the large opponent? Can she flank the large opponent if an ally is standing directly opposite her, adjacent to the large opponent?
Yes, and yes. While she may not be able to attack the creature due to the reach rules being written with the assumption that the target creature is Medium, the threatening rules only require you to be able to attack into the square. The creatures inability to attack a Large creature is irrelevant, as shown by creatures taking the Total Defense action still threatening for purposes of flanking.
Guys, the reach weapon rules do not allow you to attack (with the reach weapon) a creature that is adjacent.
To apply a ruling from a published source, here is an exceprt from the CRB, with my bolding:
Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FirstLevelFighter, that quote was already posted in this thread, hence I didn't need to repost it. :)
|
Do the rules not say that you attack 'an opponent', 'a creature', 'a foe'? I don't remember seeing anywhere that you choose the square of a large or larger creature to attack. If they do please quote I could well be wrong.
A large creature adjacent to you cannot therefore be attacked with a reach weapon.
The soft cover rules allow you to choose a square to determine cover but do not alter the fact that it must first be a valid target for your attack.
If that were the case you wouldn't be able to make attacks while blind, in total darkness, or against invisible creatures, which you clearly can. You totally can choose to attack a square.
If that were the case you wouldn't be able to make attacks while blind, in total darkness, or against invisible creatures, which you clearly can. You totally can choose to attack a square.Do the rules not say that you attack 'an opponent', 'a creature', 'a foe'? I don't remember seeing anywhere that you choose the square of a large or larger creature to attack. If they do please quote I could well be wrong.
A large creature adjacent to you cannot therefore be attacked with a reach weapon.
The soft cover rules allow you to choose a square to determine cover but do not alter the fact that it must first be a valid target for your attack.
At a 50% miss chance! Plus they get +4 AC due to cover.
I still don't see it, mind you. But the best case is the GM saying, "Okay, the BBG's head & shoulders are blocking your view. But you can stab past those to try to get the thing's hiney. Randomly."
However, that's for an attack. Can you threaten a square if you're blind? I can't find a "yay" or "nay" in the rules.
If that were the case you wouldn't be able to make attacks while blind, in total darkness, or against invisible creatures, which you clearly can. You totally can choose to attack a square.Do the rules not say that you attack 'an opponent', 'a creature', 'a foe'? I don't remember seeing anywhere that you choose the square of a large or larger creature to attack. If they do please quote I could well be wrong.
A large creature adjacent to you cannot therefore be attacked with a reach weapon.
The soft cover rules allow you to choose a square to determine cover but do not alter the fact that it must first be a valid target for your attack.
That's really not the same thing as picking a non-adjacent square of a multi-square enemy to attack rather than attacking the enemy in general.
However, that's for an attack. Can you threaten a square if you're blind? I can't find a "yay" or "nay" in the rules.
Yes, you can. Blind effectively grants cover to all your opponents. If we look in the cover rules, cover does prevent AoO's, but does not prevent attacking otherwise. The only type of cover that prevents attacking is total cover - which is based not on line of sight, but line of effect - ie, there is a physical obstacle blocking your attack in that case. So the rules do need to explicitly tell us "yay". The default for being able to attack a creature, or into a square, is "yay" assuming your weapon can reach that square. So except in cases where the rules tells us "nay" explicitly (total cover), then "yay" is the answer.
Threatening a square only asks "Could you attack that square?"
Now, that does not quite answer the question of attacking the "behind" of a creature at range while the creature is adjacent to you. You clearly can't attack the creature as that is strictly forbidden in the rules on reach weapons. In my opinion then, you cannot attack a square at reach containing that creature (this very much looks like a attempt to circumvent that first rule to me), and thus cannot threaten that creature.
One way of looking at the intent of the threatening rules is that you threaten all creatures which you could make a melee attack against. When a creature is medium or small, this is synonymous with threatening their squares. But of course the rules says squares, so we have this debate on whether it is allowed or not. (Legalistic RAW seems to allow it). And I can certainly see the argument being made about threatening that square - certainly if there was a large creature, and there was a tiny creature 10' away from you, sharing one of the larger creatures squares, you'd threaten that tiny creature (or its square) for purposes of flanking that tiny creature.
If I were to rewrite the rules on threatening, I'd simply restate it as I noted above. You threaten all creatures which you could make a melee attack against. This includes creatures that are invisible or otherwise have cover.
I understand the rule seems clear, but 'adjacent' may be work a bit differently when we are talking about large (or larger) creatures. I would say that a large creature is both adjacent and not adjacent because it fills more squares. Else, you would have the case where you can attack a target behind the large creature (with cover), but not the creature itself. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just Ctrl-F'ed my way through the combat chapter and this is what I come up with:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your
opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.(...)
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
So technically there isn't actually a definition of threatening a creature, only of squares. However, the reasonable analogy would be that "you threaten all creatures that you can attack".
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
If you can't attack an enemy with a reach weapon because he's adjacent, you're not threatening that enemy. So you can't flank it.
Note that you might still be threatening some of the squares he occupies that are far away enough from you. You could make attacks against creatures passing through those squares (and even gain flanking). But not against the prime enemy we were discussing.
Expect Table Variance
My RAW interpretation permits you to threaten a non-adjacent square to provide and receive flanking.
I recognize others read a different RAW which will result in table variance.
Thanks, everyone. I wanted to know if there was a specific clause somewhere addressing the questions I posted.
It looks like there is a way (indeed, multiple ways) to interpret the rules to answer my questions.
What about the Z axis? A large creature might occupy four squares on the ground and four squares "in the air". The argument that you can't attack squares blocked by the adjacent portion of the creature doesn't really work when there's nothing blocking you from attacking diagonally upward, right?
That's the thought process I've used in the past when someone with reach is backed into a corner by a tall enemy.
diagonally upward is still only 5ft away and are considered adjacent squares. You have a perfect little cube for all the adjacent squares that are 5ft away.
WatersLethe, the rules regarding reach weapons are written as 'yes or no'. Either the creature is adjacent, or it is not. It doesn't matter if some portion of it is far enough away to attack, if it is still adjacent then you cannot attack it.
However, if that doesn't make sense to your and your GM then you guys are free to houserule it.
But, this is the rules forum and the rule on this is very clear. You cannot attack an adjacent creature of any size with a reach weapon.
James,
The problem is people are conflating and mis-applying rules to try to sidestep the original rule, whether or not something is adjacent.
Either it is adjacent or it isn't. Whether it takes up multiple spaces is not relevant to that question UNLESS the rules state it is. They don't.
That is not to say I wouldn't allow it in certain circumstances, but I know I would be altering the rules to do so.
Example I might allow: the 'tall' argument. A creature is huge and thus you can attack it at a point that is not adjacent and that is not covered by that same creature (ie: 3 squares up). This seems reasonable even if it is against the rules.
However, since we are now into houserule territory I would also rule that that would not provide flanking with another creature at the same height since at that point since a line from the reach weapon user through that square of the creature would not end at prospective flanker.
Example of what I would not allow: the 'I hit the large creature's backside through it'. To me this is patently ridiculous and an obvious attempt to try to sidestep the reach weapon rules. I cannot even envision how such an attack would proceed. Does your spear bend in a U shape? Silly.
The rules here are pretty clear though, adjacent creature = no attack possible with a reach weapon.
Do they make sense 100% of the time? No, but the PF rules rarely do.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I understood your reasoning, but I didn't agree with it.
That being said, your last post made me rethink this for an entirely different reason. Or at least, one I hadn't considered.
Flanking requires going through opposite sides.
If you start your attack area in the middle of the creature, you are not crossing opposite sides.
So that being considered, I'm now on the "reach doesn't grant flanking if the creature is adjacent to you" camp.
|
|
I will try to make this simple. To flank you must both threaten a melee attack (ranged attacks can not threaten unless someone can provide a feat/ability/whatever I'm not aware of) and to determine if two characters flank they must both threaten the same target and the lines from the center of their squares (or of any square they occupy in the case of larger than medium creatures) must cross opposite sides (or through opposite corners) of the same creature.
So lets try to check this with 1 Reach, and 1 non Reach
_ empty
R Reach Attacker
A Adjacent Attacker
E Enemy/Target
The following 5 options (really 3 if you don't count the mirror images) all provide flanking, the first option and the last two options are clearly flanks as they pass directly accross opposite ends of the target's square. The 2nd and 3rd layouts, the flanking lines just catch the corner closest to the reach attacker, since that corner is part of the side opposite the line that is crossed by the adjacent attacker it also qualifies as a flank.
Flanking!
__R__||_R___||___R_||____R||R____
_____||_____||_____||_____||_____
__E__||__E__||__E__||__E__||__E__
__A__||__A__||__A__||_A___||___A_
Since all of the lines in the illustrations below would cross through adjacent sides of the target (not opposite sides) none of them qualify for flanking.9
Not Flanking!
__R__||__R__||_R___||___R_
_____||_____||_____||_____
__E__||__E__||__E__||__E__
_A___||___A_||___A_||_A___
Once we identify these layouts we can even identify that 3 people with reach weapons could all attack the same opponent while flanking off only a single ally adjacent to the target.
_RRR_
_____
__E__
__A__
Example of what I would not allow: the 'I hit the large creature's backside through it'. To me this is patently ridiculous and an obvious attempt to try to sidestep the reach weapon rules. I cannot even envision how such an attack would proceed. Does your spear bend in a U shape? Silly.How is it silly? Creatures don't occupy their entire squares. If you had enough reach, you could attack entirely through an adjacent large creature to attack a creature on the opposite side (through soft cover). And yet, you think it's 'silly' that part of the creature further away from you could be likewise exposed to your attack?
It's not a question of part of the creature further away from you than other parts being exposed to your attack. Theoretically, all of the creature is exposed to your attacks when it's a legal target because it does ultimately occupy all of its squares in a fairly abstracted way and you're fighting all of it. When part of that creature is too close to use your reach weapon, that weapon is essentially ruled ineffective by the reach property. You might theoretically be able to reach and attack some of the squares the creature is in, but because some are too close, you can't attack the creature at all with that weapon. And that takes those squares the creature occupies right off the list of squares you can attack.