| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I am confused who the adjacent person is this Redirect Attack talent. If Player A attacks Rouge B, can Rouge B use Redirect Attack to have Player A hit themself?
I am confused who the adjacent person is this Redirect Attack talent. If Player A attacks Rouge B, can Rouge B use Redirect Attack to have Player A hit themself?
I would rule that you cannot. There aren't exactly rules for attacking oneself, so that shouldn't be an option - nor does it really fit with what I perceive to be the intent of the ability.
The attack can be redirected at an adjacent ally or foe - someone who is within reach of the attack the hit the rogue. Meaning within melee reach of the original attacker.
|
I am confused who the adjacent person is this Redirect Attack talent. If Player A attacks Rouge B, can Rouge B use Redirect Attack to have Player A hit themself?I would rule that you cannot. There aren't exactly rules for attacking oneself, so that shouldn't be an option - nor does it really fit with what I perceive to be the intent of the ability.
The attack can be redirected at an adjacent ally or foe - someone who is within reach of the attack the hit the rogue. Meaning within melee reach of the original attacker.
and you do threaten your own square don't you (thus why swarms and tiny creatures need to be in the same square as their target). It has a precedence in movies (how many times does someone deflect a rapier strike into the attacker's own foot?) and there are multiple knife self defences taught in modern martial arts that this is main point (no pun intended)
I would rule that they are adjacent to B and a ally or foe of B and thus they can be hit with the attack.
Redirect Attack (Ex): Once per day, when a rogue with
this talent is hit with a melee attack, she can redirect the
attack to strike at an adjacent creature with a free action.
The creature targeted must be within melee reach of the
attack that hit the rogue, and the creature that made the
attack against the rogue must make a new attack roll
against the new target.
The person attacking her is probably going to be adjacent to her. If they're adjacent, sure, they can redirect the attack back. Because of the wording of Opportunist, they can even redirect the attack back, and, if it hits, use opportunist to get a free AoO on that target. Not bad! Even better if they have combat reflexes, because, well, if you do it on the surprise round you can do all of the above plus sneak attack damage and sneak attack effects... nothing says "Welcome to the killing zone" like using an enemy's uncanny reflexes against them, stabbing them while they're off balance and cutting their tendons so their next attacks won't be quite as dangerous, all before actually finishing your charge!
But you can't use this on, say, large or larger creatures that well. So it's usefulness is up in the air.
Alright. If the creature is within melee reach of itself, the rogue can force it to roll an attack against itself.
I suppose that ruling isn't exactly gamebreaking, and it provides more opportunities for an otherwise very situation-specific once-a-day ability.
I read this ability as more of a 'duck under the blade and the momentum carries it into the attacker's friend' kind of thing. Since it isn't the rogue making the second attack roll, it didn't strike me as an ability that the rogue was physically participating in. Without that participation, I don't see how an attacker would accidentally hit himself. Even if it is a physical redirect (grabbing the attackers arm and driving it towards another target rather than positioning oneself to allow momentum to do the work after a deft dodge), bringing, say, a longsword around to strike at the attacker feels like it should require an active participation (a roll) from the rogue for the attack.
Still, the wording doesn't specify that the original attacker is exempt. Rule it how you see fit. RAW seems to agree with the 'why are you hitting yourself?' gambit.
Alright. If the creature is within melee reach of itself, the rogue can force it to roll an attack against itself.
I suppose that ruling isn't exactly gamebreaking, and it provides more opportunities for an otherwise very situation-specific once-a-day ability.
I read this ability as more of a 'duck under the blade and the momentum carries it into the attacker's friend' kind of thing. Since it isn't the rogue making the second attack roll, it didn't strike me as an ability that the rogue was physically participating in. Without that participation, I don't see how an attacker would accidentally hit himself. Even if it is a physical redirect (grabbing the attackers arm and driving it towards another target rather than positioning oneself to allow momentum to do the work after a deft dodge), bringing, say, a longsword around to strike at the attacker feels like it should require an active participation (a roll) from the rogue for the attack.
Still, the wording doesn't specify that the original attacker is exempt. Rule it how you see fit. RAW seems to agree with the 'why are you hitting yourself?' gambit.
I did not like the RAW interpretation at first, but it is only once per day. I see it as a get out of jail card for when you are about to be critted or you need to tumble, but fail your acrobatics check at a really bad time.
As an amusing aside, a friend of mine prefers 3.5e cleave to Pathfinder cleave. Using this talent in his game, a rogue could redirect a strike from a barbarian to a weaker target and the barbarian would just cleave back to the rogue after dropping that target. :P
I am confused who the adjacent person is this Redirect Attack talent. If Player A attacks Rouge B, can Rouge B use Redirect Attack to have Player A hit themself?
I'm confused why a player is attacking make up?
Seriously tho, by RAW, yes they can re-direct the attack on the initial attacker.
Keep in mind it's only once a day and and the creature that made the
attack against the rogue must make a new attack roll against the new target.
What happens if you redirect the attack against a "come and get me" barbarian?
Jokes aside, I like this interpretation, as well as the opportunist combo!
Great!