Sharing a square

[shroudb]

And the question repeats like in PF1:

what happens when you are inside the squares occupied by a Large+ creature?

do you count as flanking?
is the monster's reach counting inwards of it or only outwards (so can it strike inside his squares)?
Do you get cover from it (against others trying to hit you)?

To me, as written, "nothing happens". You get absolutely no benefit being inside a creature's space, it's exactly the same as you standing in front of it.

but then what's the purpose of feats like the halfing Dance Underfoot?

[Abyssalwyrm]

You certainly not flanking, as you not on "opposite side".

Monster surely can hit anything inside it's own occupied squares.

Cover... most likely not. You would need to have either something immobile, or at least cooperative, to provide you a cover.

[shroudb]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

You certainly not flanking, as you not on "opposite side".

Monster surely can hit anything inside it's own occupied squares.

Cover... most likely not. You would need to have either something immobile, or at least cooperative, to provide you a cover.

you can get lesser cover from enemies, there's no need for them to be either cooperative or immobile, that's not the issue, the problem is that it again has the wording that it needs to be between the attack and you, something that's in extremely grey area when you are sharing a square.

as i said, i'd rule it as a no if i were to go strict raw, but then aagain it repeats the question: what's the point of abilities that allow you to go in an enemy's square if it provides exactly 0 benefits while costing an action?

p.s. as for moster's "surely" hiting anything inside it's occupied square, that's exactly as undefined as it was in pf2: reach is about how far you can extend, but it actually tells nothing from where you start counting (like from the center of the square or from the edge of it)

[Abyssalwyrm]

shroudb wrote:

what's the point of abilities that allow you to go in an enemy's square if it provides exactly 0 benefits while costing an action?

Been in the very small space, that would limit everyone's mobility, and perhaps even allow monster block you access to better positions.

And in case monster/NPC capable of doing AoE attacks, to which he himself no immune/resistant to, he would have hard time targeting you specifically with those abilities.

[shroudb]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

shroudb wrote:

what's the point of abilities that allow you to go in an enemy's square if it provides exactly 0 benefits while costing an action?

Been in the very small space, that would limit everyone's mobility, and perhaps even allow monster block you access to better positions.

And in case monster/NPC capable of doing AoE attacks, to which he himself no immune/resistant to, he would have hard time targeting you specifically with those abilities.

the ability triggers "instead" of going fully behind him, so the space isn;t an issue since you would have been behind the enemy without using the ability either way.

actually, rereading cover rules, it seems you would actually gain lesser cover from just about everything:

" If the line passes through a creature instead, the target has lesser cover. When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space."

it doesn't need to go completely from one edge to another like flanking rules, if the line of effect just go through it applies lesser cover.

[Castilliano]

I was wondering a day or two ago what the PF2 benefits are to this tactic (other than abilities that come with a trick inherently).

I guess as well as lesser cover & AoE placement, being in an enemy's space might cut off some other enemies from reaching you, though that's a bit unlikely to occur. Seems more often a drawback making it hard for allies to reach you (or your body) and harder for them to target the enemy w/ even small AoEs (depending on the ceiling).

If there were a square of enemy between oneself and an ally, I'd count that enemy as flanked. Or maybe not, since that'd open up some diagonals too. Hmm.