|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If I grapple or am grappled and so gained the grappled condition, do I still threaten (and can provide flanking)?
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 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.
My GM points out that I have to be able to make AoOs for threatening. Is he right?
|
You have to be treatening to make AoOs, you don't need AoOs to threaten. All that threatening requires is that you could make attacks, if it were your turn. If you're paralyzed or don't have a weapon (or other "armed attack") ready, you don't threaten.
However, suppose you're a 2H weapon user and get grappled. A grappled creature can't do things that require both hands, so you can't threaten attacks with that weapon right now.
Threatening is a requirement for AoOs, not the other way around. You have to threaten, and you have to be free of conditions that prevent you from taking AoOs (don't be blind, don't be grappled, don't be paralyzed/stunned/dazed...). Many of these conditions also stop you from threatening, but not all of them do (blind).
|
Being able to take an AoO does not determine if you are threatening.. If it did you would no longer be able to provide flanking if you took all your AoO's for the round.Wrong.
You would still be able to make AOO's if you had any left so you wouldn't lose the ability to threaten under that criteria.Just like not having any attacks left doesn't mean you don't threaten.
It seems like you don't understand the post that you're quoting, he's saying the same thing that you are.
|
If I grapple or am grappled and so gained the grappled condition, do I still threaten (and can provide flanking)?
My GM points out that I have to be able to make AoOs for threatening. Is he right?
Basically the answer is "maybe".
The criteria for "threatening" is vague to say the least.Personally I think it requires an AOO, and many others like your GM have a similar view. But equally there are many others who disagree.
Because the rules don't have a clear definition players are forced to fall back on extracting interpretations of what they were "really saying" or secondary sources "Because they say in "X" situation "y" occurs then in "z" situation surely "y" occurs as well".
The definition for Threatening is clear, and was provided by the OP. It only relies on ability to attack a certain square, not being able to make an AoO into said square.
With grappling, it can definitely matter because you may lose the ability to use your weapon (if it's two handed) and thus you would stop threatening.
Agyra,
Yes, you still threaten because you can still make an attack.
Your GM is wrong. While quite a few people hold the opinion that being able to make AoOs is a requirement to threaten that is not what the rules state.
While quite a few people hold the opinion that being able to make AoOs is a requirement to threaten that is not what the rules state.
Wait. What? Really?
|
While quite a few people hold the opinion that being able to make AoOs is a requirement to threaten that is not what the rules state.Wait. What? Really?
Indeed. I posted a quote earlier on in the thread:
"Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking —including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking."
You can read this a couple of different ways.
1) You still threaten while using Total Defense,
or
2) You still threaten even when you otherwise cannot take an Attack of Opportunity.
Yes, you still threaten, until this hits FAQ and they errata clarify the situation.
You still threaten when you're out of attacks of opportunity.
You still threaten when you've used Total Defense.
I'm not sure about cover; I haven't checked, but I'd expect less than total cover to still invite threat because you can still make an attack.
Ah. I misread the post. My brain switched it around, where I thought he said you don't need to threaten to make AoO's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're ignoring a very important comma.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agyra,
Yes, you still threaten because you can still make an attack.
Your GM is wrong. While quite a few people hold the opinion that being able to make AoOs is a requirement to threaten that is not what the rules state.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. "
So you have to be able to attack even when it's not your action.
That's pretty much in the description of been able to make an AOO.
If you can't make an AOO (even if it's a theorectical AOO) then you can't make an attack when it's not your action.
Therefore you aren't threatening.As I aid in my 1st post there are two valid approaches depending on how you choose to read the rather sparse definition.
Even if some wish to claim otherwise.
You can only AoO if someone provokes.
Are you saying you can't flank people if they're not currently provoking attacks of opportunity?