|
Reading it that way you threaten even if unarmed without IUS, using the total defense action, grappled, flatfooted and so on.That is correct. It appears the text about not threatening when unarmed is superfluous.
Can you elaborate?
I don't get if you are sarcastic (possible, as the rules explicitly say that you don't threaten when unarmed and I purposefully hadn't addressed that to explain how I read what you are saying) or serious.
|
For whatever reason, the intent was that only armed creatures threaten. Thus the notation that unarmed strikes do not threaten and cannot make attacks of opportunity. However, this is not spelled out in the rules. So there is a contradiction between being able to make unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes not threatening any spaces.
|
|
For whatever reason, the intent was that only armed creatures threaten. Thus the notation that unarmed strikes do not threaten and cannot make attacks of opportunity. However, this is not spelled out in the rules. So there is a contradiction between being able to make unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes not threatening any spaces.
With IUS you count as armed, so you threaten, I think that the idea is that if your attacks can't deal lethal damage and provoke an AoO they don't threaten.
This is pretty much my DM's stance on it, and im paraphrasing him
" RAI. The Troll does not threaten because he's being held (via grappled condition, via AoO section, via Threatened Squares) Two of those things work together to determine when you are actually threatening your attack area, there is really no room to negotiate on that, its written clear as day in the text and they are the only things dealing with threatened areas/spaces/squares from what I saw. the Grappled condition is what's preventing him from taking the AoO's needed to qualify as threatening, (contextually it makes sense you grapple someone so that they aren't able to attack to the best of their ability making it either impossible for them to attack, making it harder for them to attack and hit, and to make it easier for them to get hit by your allies, or to prevent them from moving, or possibly stop them from casting certain spells, While Grappled the Troll can attack any square to which he can reach with a light weapon (via Grapple Combat Maneuver,) these attacks are a option given to the grappled person should he choose not to try and escape the grapple. "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple," this does not change the grapple condition you are still held, you are still unable to take AOO's, you thus do not qualify for all the factors necessary for threatening all reachable adjacent squares, hence you do not qualify for flanking. If you go to flanking in the d20psrd and click on the threatened hyperlink it will take you back to threatened area which is under the AoO section which is why all of this to which im explaining is relevant. There is a method and a reason to the madness. Anyone trying to gain a flanking bonus from the troll against the dragon unfortunately doesn't. if it looks like its hurdle jumping then its because there are 4 or 5 rules coming into play all at the same time."
Point your GM to this thread and have them read through it.
It's really not as simple as they think it is.
Unless your GM is a very stubborn person, this piece of advice could help. Next time a doubt in combat arises, use the most beneficial choice for the party (in this case allowing the flank). It really works fine in our table.
Once the session ends, go and look for answers, discuss the matter and so on. And if no clear answer is found then try to reach consensus. The least he could do is make it clear that "next time it will be done like this because of this and that" to avoid further arguments and headaches.
On a personal note, I've never liked grapple and I think I'll never be, because of things like that.
Unless your GM is a very stubborn person, this piece of advice could help. Next time a doubt in combat arises, use the most beneficial choice for the party (in this case allowing the flank). It really works fine in our table.
Once the session ends, go and look for answers, discuss the matter and so on. And if no clear answer is found then try to reach consensus. The least he could do is make it clear that "next time it will be done like this because of this and that" to avoid further arguments and headaches.
On a personal note, I've never liked grapple and I think I'll never be, because of things like that.
That would well in some groups, and I've played in groups where that would work, and I've also played ion groups where that would be a disaster.
If you have a player who will take that approach as "I get my way everytime I argue with the GM". What you might call the "backseat GM". He wants to be a player but also control how the GM operates the game.There is no "right way" to GM because GMing is always done in concert with the players and how they interact with the GM. So what works well with 1 GM/Group can be a mess, even if you merely change a single person in the group or change who is the GM in the Group. Change the personal dynamics and the effectiveness of GM approaches changes.
Agreed to that. Sometimes it seems one needs some kind of psychology master to deal with problematic players/GMs.
True, I'm not in his table, but one don't know if something works until it tries.
On my personal experience, we also had that kind of players, sometimes that approachment worked, sometimes not. And when they not, they were kindly reminded that no one were forcing them to play on a table/game that it's not their coup of tea. Only once I've witnessed a friend /kicking a problematic player, and believe me he looong tried to be patient with him (as well as us).
Then again, as you said, every table is a whole world.
Reading it that way you threaten even if unarmed without IUS, using the total defense action, grappled, flatfooted and so on.That is correct. It appears the text about not threatening when unarmed is superfluous.
Or it could be that this is a specific override to the threatening rule. That US, while being able to attack squares, can't count as threatening.
A very simple and often done thing. Have a general rule, have 1 thing that is an exception to the rule.
Also, I'm curious as to what stuff is linking threatening with AoO. The only thing I'm aware of is that you must be threatening them when they provoke to be able to take an AoO.
I know it's not really backed by the rules, by I've always thought of flanking as "attacking where they can't pay attention". If you are actively grappling someone, the act of grappling is occupying your attention and you can't easily respond to a threat that's behind you. It doesn't matter if the grappled thing is able to explicitly threaten you or not: if it's armed, it still demands your attention.
Again, not really backed by the rules, but it's an interpretation that helps. YMMV.
Also, I'm curious as to what stuff is linking threatening with AoO. The only thing I'm aware of is that you must be threatening them when they provoke to be able to take an AoO.
As I understand it, it's the fact that the rules for threatening squares is found under the section of the rules that govern Attacks of Opportunity, or more precise, your inability to take Attacks of Opportunity or any attack when it's not your turn questions whether or not you are a actual threat and thus provide a flanking bonus while grappled, the condition that in this particular situation is preventing you from aiding your allies with the flanking assist when it's their turn.
|
This is pretty much my DM's stance on it, and im paraphrasing him
" RAI. The Troll does not threaten because he's being held (via grappled condition, via AoO section, via Threatened Squares) Two of those things work together to determine when you are actually threatening your attack area, there is really no room to negotiate on that, its written clear as day in the text and they are the only things dealing with threatened areas/spaces/squares from what I saw. the Grappled condition is what's preventing him from taking the AoO's needed to qualify as threatening, (contextually it makes sense you grapple someone so that they aren't able to attack to the best of their ability making it either impossible for them to attack, making it harder for them to attack and hit, and to make it easier for them to get hit by your allies, or to prevent them from moving, or possibly stop them from casting certain spells, While Grappled the Troll can attack any square to which he can reach with a light weapon (via Grapple Combat Maneuver,) these attacks are a option given to the grappled person should he choose not to try and escape the grapple. "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple," this does not change the grapple condition you are still held, you are still unable to take AOO's, you thus do not qualify for all the factors necessary for threatening all reachable adjacent squares, hence you do not qualify for flanking. If you go to flanking in the d20psrd and click on the threatened hyperlink it will take you back to threatened area which is under the AoO section which is why all of this to which im explaining is relevant. There is a method and a reason to the madness. Anyone trying to gain a flanking bonus from the troll against the dragon unfortunately doesn't. if it looks like its hurdle jumping then its because there are 4 or 5 rules coming into play all at the same time."
The rules for Threatened spaces are listed under flanking because the two are so closely related.
Without text saying that you must be able to make an AoO into a square in order to threaten it you can't simply say that the ability to AoO is required to threaten simply because the rules on Threaten come in the Section on AoO.
The very logic presented by that argument is circular. If you have to Threaten to get an AoO and you have to be able to take an AoO to threaten then you have to establish that you are able to do one before you can establish that you're able to do the other, which in turns requires that you first establish you were able to do the first one.
As is clearly called out in the total defense action while performing total defense you are unable to take an AoO, but you still threaten any squares in which you are able to attack, so you still provide a flank.
To say that your ability to attack is reduced when grappling means that you shouldn't be allowed to offer a flank is equally faulty. It makes no since that a level 12 fighter with a +20 to attack gets reduced to a +18 to attack so he doesn't threaten other squares, but a level 1 Wizard with a dagger and -1 to attack can threaten.
|
|
Also, I'm curious as to what stuff is linking threatening with AoO. The only thing I'm aware of is that you must be threatening them when they provoke to be able to take an AoO.As I understand it, it's the fact that the rules for threatening squares is found under the section of the rules that govern Attacks of Opportunity, or more precise, your inability to take Attacks of Opportunity or any attack when it's not your turn questions whether or not you are a actual threat and thus provide a flanking bonus while grappled, the condition that in this particular situation is preventing you from aiding your allies with the flanking assist when it's their turn.
As for this, for the third or forth time this concept has been brought up. To claim that since you are unable to make an attack of opportunity would mean that you are not a threat to anyone, therefore you do not threaten is ridiculous.
A creature that does not have combat reflexes and has already taken 1 attack of opportunity for the round still threatens squares normally, and can still offer a flank.
A creature currently performing a Total Defense is unable to perform any attacks of opportunity and are so focused on defending themselves they are clearly not an immediate threat. Yet again, They still threaten squares normally, and they still offer a flank!
So basically if you have the grappled condition:
- You can't make AoO
- You threaten adjacent squares and thus you give/get the flank bonus
- You can attack with a light blade, proficient unnarmed attack, or natural weapon the squares you threaten
If you have the pinned condition:
- You no longer threaten squares and can't make any attack at all.
- If you Escape or succeed in the grapple check you become free, not grappled.
The grappler attacker can no longer decide in which square he puts the grappler deffender unless:
- The deffender was out of adjacent reach at the start of the grapple.
- The one who is winning the grapple takes the 'move' grapple option.
I am missing something?
On a personal doubt. Let's just say that we have a dragon with the Flyby attack and Snatch feats (or any other flying monster witch Grab attack), and 100' of fly movement.
First round it spends 60' of its fly movement and attacks the target:
- If the attack miss, the dragon uses the remain 40' to fly away.
- If the attack hits but don't succeed the grapple, it flies away anyway.
- If attacks the enemy target, hits and win the grapple, it has to stop the movement and loses the remaining 40' since the 'move' grapple option is a standar action.
If the deffender, either at the end of the first turn or at the start of the second turn don't break free of the grapple then the dragon can:
- Set free the deffender for any reason, land on the ground an perform its full round options.
- Attempt a grapple 'move' option as a standar action, and if it wins the dragon flies 50' away with the deffender (following the elevation rules).
- If the grapple 'move' option fails then the deffender breaks free and the dragon can decide to land on the ground or fly away 100'.
I am correct?
So basically if you have the grappled condition:
- You can't make AoO
- You threaten adjacent squares and thus you give/get the flank bonus
- You can attack with a light blade, proficient unnarmed attack, or natural weapon the squares you threatenI am correct?
By RAW. No.
You're not wrong either by RAW. It's indeterminate.It comes down to what "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." means.
It's not clear and there is very little written elsewhere regarding what determines threatening.
Which means we are down to trying to decide RAI, and given how little is written that's very hard to say.
This is pretty much what im getting from all of this. Also Glorf Fei-Hung, the rules for threatening squares aren't listed under flanking, they are listed under AOO's which is why AOO's is partially so important in this debate it seems. Your ability or inability to do so may determine whether or not you generate threat when its not your turn, which would understandably determine if you're a flanking partner when it's not your turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically if you have the grappled condition:
- You can't make AoO
- You threaten adjacent squares and thus you give/get the flank bonus
- You can attack with a light blade, proficient unnarmed attack, or natural weapon the squares you threatenI am correct?
By RAW. No.
You're not wrong either by RAW. It's indeterminate.It comes down to what "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." means.
It's not clear and there is very little written elsewhere regarding what determines threatening.
Which means we are down to trying to decide RAI, and given how little is written that's very hard to say.
I see, so basically we are on an impasse here until official clarification.
2) Saying "you can even threaten when it's not your turn" makes no sense because threatening in the basic combat rules is something that only gets referred to when it's not your turn.
Really, because that's how I've always interpreted that line since I played 3.0x in the rules.
And "because threatening in the basic combat rules is something that only gets referred to when it's not your turn" absolutely does not make sense because otherwise if someone did something during your turn which provoked you wouldn't be able to make an AoO for it if you didn't threaten. As an example, you perform a combat maneuver with the Improved Maneuver feat (which removes you from provoking). Thus, your enemy gets an AoO during your turn. The enemy, being foolish, attacks you with an unarmed strike without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, thus provoking an AoO from you during your turn.
IIRC somewhere in the forums of " the other guys" (can I mention another companies other than Paizo?) they posted some faq 'clarifications' a long while ago.
In 3.5 unarmed strikes without the feat can only be made as a normal attack and provoking AoO. So basically one cannot use his AoO action to make an unarmed strike that triggers the enemy AoO, and unless the Improved US is taken you don't threaten any square.
You are semi-correct, I should have reversed the order.
However, we should not assume all things from 3.5 apply to Pathfinder, although it can be elucidating when we have nothing else to work from.
But in short, yes my example should have been that character A attacked during their turn using an unarmed strike (not possessing Improved Unarmed Strike) and thus provoked and in response character B performed a combat maneuver (such as a trip which can always be done in place of a regular attack) and provoked for not having Improved Trip.
But the general point is the same despite my first example being in error. I blame it on being early in the morning.
You'll note I corrected my example, by reversing the order and it is then a valid example. And requires no feats to have happen, in fact it actually requires you don't have feats to make it happen.
1) At the start of combat before you've acted you cannot make an AoO because you are flat-footed. You need Combat Reflexes to do so, it's explicitly mentioned in Combat Reflexes.
2) Stunned conditions says you can't take actions...not completely clear but probably not. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't factor in here...I'm not sure what you mean.
3) Per confusion:
Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).4) Blinded causes total concealment against all enemies. Total concealment specifies:
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
So no, you can't make AoO while blinded.
So under these circumstances you can't make AoO.
As for "threatening" it only says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack (I believe) that's the phrasing.
So I would say...you probably don't threaten in any of those scenarios, but it's not crystal clear either.
That being said, being grappled is different because on your turn you could make melee attacks, and thus would threaten. Whereas in your other scenarios you are prevented from making attacks.
Edit: Actually I think with blinded you might threaten (because you can make melee attacks on your turn) to provide flanking, but still not clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The AoO and threatening rules both being described under the section on AoO has no import on how the rules work. Chapter headings, section headings, and sub-section headings are simply an organizational tool for the rules, but do not, of themselves, define in any fashion how the rules work.
The precedent (to me) is clear.
1) Do you threaten? If you are armed with a melee weapon/natural weapon/IUS/held charge, or other form of armed melee attack, then you threaten all squares into which your weapon can reach. The general rule is you threaten all squares you can make a melee attack into to (or could if it were currently your turn). Then there is the specific rule that unarmed attacks (without IUS) does not threaten - a special case where you could make a melee attack, but do not threaten. Whip is another one, melee weapon, but does not threaten normally.
Once you have established whether you threaten or not, and if you do, we move on to
2) Can you make an AoO? Do you have AoO's remaining? Are you grappled? Are you using total defense? Does target have total concealment? All of these effect whether you can or cannot take the AoO. But none of these effect your ability to threaten.
You can threaten while invisible, or while the enemy is. You can threaten while grappled. You can threaten while taking total defense. None of these conditions, or actions, remove your ability to threaten, only your ability to take AoO's.
Related to this there are several situations that I would like to hear whether posters thing a character "Threatens" in these situations.
1) At the start of a combat before you act.
2) When Stunned and with IUS.
3) Confused when you haven't been attacked by anyone and roll "Babble incoherently".
4) When you are Blind?
Thanks
So for these. Flat footed prevents AoO's. But if you happened to have a weapon already in hand, and an enemy moved next to you, and your ally move behind them, then you provide a flanking partner for them. It would be a pretty rare case, and a dumb or mindless enemy, for that condition to ever come up in a game.
Stunned prevents you taking actions, you cannot attack while stunned, therefore you cannot threaten (or take AoO's).
Confused has specific rules regarding taking AoO's, but you'd still threaten (personally I'd be wary of anyone acting very erratically with a sword in their hand, they are still a threat to you, even if they only attack you 25% of the time).
Blind, you still threaten, but cannot take AoO's.
And I'm not sure why people think the text in the tactics toolbox is flavor or fluff text.
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking-including making attacks of opportunity-but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
There is nothing fluff about that. It is talking about the total defense action (a rules mechanic) and its interaction with AoOs (another rules mechanic) and its interaction with threatening (another rules mechanic). The entire sentence is rules mechanics. That is not conversational writing with multiple possible meanings - it is very clear and plain in its meaning.
Edit: Actually I think with blinded you might threaten (because you can make melee attacks on your turn) to provide flanking, but still not clear.
Interesting matter. Let's see if we can come up with some answers while I enjoy my coffee.
I'd go with this ruling: while in blinded condition you only provide flank if you really know the square where the enemy is. That is:
- Using the basic 'pintpoint' standar action and suceed in the melee touch attack.
- If you succeed on the Perception DC. Within a 30' radius the party can make passive checks everytime the enemy "does something" (moves, speaks, attacks, etc) with the pertinents +/- modifiers for the DC that are listed on the table. Let's remember that if the passive check fails, every character can make another try as a move action. If one suceeds, the enemy is pinpointed.
- Have some kind of 'extra sense' (blindsight, tremorsense, scent, see invisibility spell, etc) that automatically pinpoints the enemy within radius.
- The enemy makes a melee attack whithin adjacent reach and reveals his actual position to the deffender (and doesn't moves away). Why is the deffender the only one that pintpoints the attacker? I'd say that every party member needs to pinpoint the invisible enemy if they want to make any kind of attack action on the square he is right now.
How does it sound?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a section of that book with generic guidelines written in a conversational tone. I would be very careful about calling it "a rule".To cite a few section of the same part of the book:
"Ranks in Acrobatics allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity when you’re moving and increase your Armor Class bonuses from fighting defensively or using total defense."
So now we only need to have ranks in acrobatics to avoid AoO?"A shield can also allow you to flexibly switch between offensive and defensive options by doubling as an off-hand weapon with feats such as Bashing Finish, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Master, and Shield Slam"
You now need those feats to use a shield offensively?
The thing is, those statements are true. Just not explaining everything.
RankS in acrobatics are used to try and avoid attacks while moving when you try to move without provoking. Having ranks in the skill makes it more likely to happen. Thus ranks in acrobatics do allow you to more often avoid attacks, or ranks let you avoid attacks. And having 3 ranks into acrobatics gives you more AC when you total defend or fight defensively.So that is correctly telling you that having ranks in acrobatics can let you do those things.
And come on really for the shield? "such as" is the biggest indicator that it's not a complete list. Also this is saying that a shield can be used as a weapon, here are feats that help that style.
Like, seriously. If you're trying to say that these two statements in the book, which are true statements and can easily convey the correct message and need to be twisted to try and make it look like they somehow are new rules contradicting old rules, then there's no point in discussing because it seems you are either willfully misinterpreting stuff, or not will to understand.
It's on the same level as saying the book can't be trusted to be right since there was 1 typo in it somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking-including making attacks of opportunity-but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.There is nothing fluff about that. It is talking about the total defense action (a rules mechanic) and its interaction with AoOs (another rules mechanic) and its interaction with threatening (another rules mechanic). The entire sentence is rules mechanics. That is not conversational writing with multiple possible meanings - it is very clear and plain in its meaning.To quote another poster regarding the Tactics Toolbox and your reference.
I think he covers quite well why that statement is of limited value.
It is a section of that book with generic guidelines written in a conversational tone. I would be very careful about calling it "a rule".To cite a few section of the same part of the book:
"Ranks in Acrobatics allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity when you’re moving and increase your Armor Class bonuses from fighting defensively or using total defense."
So now we only need to have ranks in acrobatics to avoid AoO?"A shield can also allow you to flexibly switch between offensive and defensive options by doubling as an off-hand weapon with feats such as Bashing Finish, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Master, and Shield Slam"
You now need those feats to use a shield offensively?
It was printed at a later date then core. It's always a rule of thumb that later printings of a rule or clarification supersedes prior issues.
AND YES, it may be written in a conversational tone, but so is the majority of the core rulebook. And I would say that the writers of melee tactics HAD the rules in mind when writing that conversation.
1) Since you can't make a Melee Attack until your action in the 1st round technically you can't threaten by both the 2 views put forward.
Those are opinions, but threatening isn't based on whether you've take a turn or not (as shown by combat reflexes).
Base (general) rule. You threaten all squares you could attack (it doesn't matter whether it is your turn or not, you've taken a turn or not, etc).
Specific rule #1: You can't take an AoO before your first turn. Again, not that you don't threaten, only that you lose the ability to AoO.
Specific rule #2: Combat reflexes lets you take AoO's before your first turn. But in order to take an AoO you must still meet the other requirements for an AoO. Combat reflexes for example does not let you take an AoO against a creature with total concealment. And it does not let you take an AoO if you don't threaten.
A side note that someone raised.
You still can't flank Invisible Creatures even under the second RAI.
This is because while threatening is required to flank someone you must also attack them, and per the rules you can't attack a creature with total concealment, you can only attack the square.
The rules explicitly do not support this interpretation.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
The only requirement for flanking is the character on the opposite side be threatening, not that the attacker be threatening. And they can threaten the square (and consequently the creature in that square).
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.
No designation that you must be attacking the creature, and not the creatures square, is called out. So any attack that could hit the creature qualifies.
Finally, attacking a creatures square, and attacking the creature are really synonymous in regards to most rules interactions. Or rather, most effects/feats/etc do not care if you are targeting a creature or a creatures square. E.g, you can still power attack against a creature with total cover, or critical focus, TWF, vital strike, etc.
Exceptions to this are called out. Can't apply sneak attack for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a section of that book with generic guidelines written in a conversational tone. I would be very careful about calling it "a rule".To cite a few section of the same part of the book:
"Ranks in Acrobatics allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity when you’re moving and increase your Armor Class bonuses from fighting defensively or using total defense."
So now we only need to have ranks in acrobatics to avoid AoO?"A shield can also allow you to flexibly switch between offensive and defensive options by doubling as an off-hand weapon with feats such as Bashing Finish, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Master, and Shield Slam"
You now need those feats to use a shield offensively?The thing is, those statements are true. Just not explaining everything.
RankS in acrobatics are used to try and avoid attacks while moving when you try to move without provoking. Having ranks in the skill makes it more likely to happen. Thus ranks in acrobatics do allow you to more often avoid attacks, or ranks let you avoid attacks. And having 3 ranks into acrobatics gives you more AC when you total defend or fight defensively.So that is correctly telling you that having ranks in acrobatics can let you do those things.
And come on really for the shield? "such as" is the biggest indicator that it's not a complete list. Also this is saying that a shield can be used as a weapon, here are feats that help that style.
Like, seriously. If you're trying to say that these two statements in the book, which are true statements and can easily convey the correct message and need to be twisted to try and make it look like they somehow are new rules contradicting old rules, then there's no point in discussing because it seems you are either willfully misinterpreting stuff, or not will to understand.
It's on the same level as saying the book can't be trusted to be right since there was 1 typo in it somewhere.
Chess Pwn has this correct.
Another level you can look at this though, if you finish reading the rules on acrobatics it tells us we need to make an acrobatics roll while moving to the avoid the AoO, and what the target number to beat is. Singling out a single sentence and telling us the rule is that is disingenuous when a complete reading of the rules shows otherwise. Now we've also singled out a single sentence, but can you show any other part of the rules that contradicts it? No. What we have is an absence of rules that, before the melee tactics toolbox clarification, left us unsure of what the correct ruling would be by RAW.
^Word.
On the one hand, you can attack into that square.. on your turn
On the other hand, you can't attack into that square because you can't make Aoos, and since flanking usually only matters on someone elses turn the functional answer is no... unless they delay and swing at them during your turn ?
Threatening isn't reliant on AoO.
You threaten, even when it's not your turn, all squares you can make melee attacks into.
Since you can make a melee attack into the square, you threaten it all the time.
grapple
"you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
threaten
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
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."
It's not a hard track to follow.
And the toolbox says something that show's it's not unprecedented.
"Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking-including making attacks of opportunity-but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking."
It's not a hard track to follow.
It's not a sure path to follow either. The rules often lend themselves to arguments for both sides. Just because you can reasonable and rationally follow a sensible line of logic from point A to point C does not mean that C is right. Sometimes you can follow a sensible line of logic from point T to point Not C.
I have no idea what toolbox you're talking about.
It's not a hard track to follow.It's not a sure path to follow either. The rules often lend themselves to arguments for both sides. Just because you can reasonable and rationally follow a sensible line of logic from point A to point C does not mean that C is right. Sometimes you can follow a sensible line of logic from point T to point Not C.
I have no idea what toolbox you're talking about.
Melee tactic's toolbox quoted earlier.
The one where it says that you threaten and provide flanking while using total defend, an action that prevents you from making AoOs.
Melee tactic's toolbox quoted earlier.
The one where it says that you threaten and provide flanking while using total defend, an action that prevents you from making AoOs.
ahh that is a pretty good piece of evidence then.
Although anyone discounting the MTT quote should also be discounting Horror Adventures quote that Evil spells are Evil acts, since they were written the same way.
I think everyone discounts the way horror adventures wanted that to work.
Indeed I do, but not because of where or how it was written.
The only core book is the CRB.
Its more the fact that a 750 gp wand of protection from evil lets you burn down 16 and a half orphanages without being evil.