| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wondering if I could get some insight on this problem.
Player 1 and the group: Attacking with a reach weapon through the unlocked and opened doorway of a keep (striking 5ft into the castle).
NPC1: Closes the door (move action) and locks it (standard action).
That's it? Can NPC1 just close a door like that while we are attacking through it? Is there no contested strength check, etc.? Is there no consideration for the weapon reaching into the space inside the keep?
I'm sure they didn't think it was necessary as we were intending to enter the castle. It's kind of a no-brainer to not let the door close...
Note that most doors don't have those median door stops like we have in modern doors that keep them from swinging open the other direction. A sword or other flat bladed weapon could still jut through between the door and the frame without having to be bent out of shape. A pole hafted weapon, maybe not so much as the pole could easily be thicker than the gap in the door to doorframe, but at the same time, what stops someone who is intentionally trying to close the door from simply pushing your haft backwards and out of the way?
It gets into the realm of extra declarations that no one would ever reasonably ready against to be not worth modeling. That said, if nothing (including the person who closed the door) is holding the door closed, nothing should stop you from effortlessly (read move action) opening the door again on your turn.
We’ll, he used a standard action to slide a bar across the door. Not just a simple lock. So now we have to breakdown a full castle door
A bar that is too heavy to be easily broken through with a strength check probably would take more than a single standard action to place. Close the door as a move>pick up the bar as another move, place as a move/standard (probably standard), at a minimum assuming it's not totally unwieldy or placed further away to require even more effort to pick up, move, and place.
|
A bar that is too heavy to be easily broken through with a strength check probably would take more than a single standard action to place. Close the door as a move>pick up the bar as another move, place as a move/standard (probably standard), at a minimum assuming it's not totally unwieldy or placed further away to require even more effort to pick up, move, and place.
Often the bar has a pivot on the side of the door. When the door is open it stays vertical on its side, when the door is closed it is easy to push it down rapidly.
Castles doors were made to be easy to bar from the defender's side.The opening question falls in the same category as: "Why I can't ready an action to strike the limb or weapon of an attacker with reach without taking a feat?"
From a ruleset point of view, the reply is: "Because you get to make too many actions, and players will exploit that every time they can."
Let's break up what the player would have wanted to do:
- I advance;
- attack through the door space without risking an immediate retaliation;
- I block the enemy from closing the door;
- if the enemy tries to dislodge my weapon he and/or his weapon now are in the door space and the door can't be closed.
A bit too much for a move and standard action.
Within the limits of the game, you would have to choose between making the attack or using the standard action to try to impede the closing of the door.
Which at that point, how will you ever overcome the enemy in the castle if you have to spend your standard action holding to make sure a door doesn't close? It just seemed like a very rude ruling to not have a counter reaction to the closing of the door. Someone will always be blocking the main entrance, so all he has to do is wait for you to attack, 5ft step back, and then his companion can close the door and latch it. That doesn't seem right to me, regardless of the actions.
|
|
Which at that point, how will you ever overcome the enemy in the castle if you have to spend your standard action holding to make sure a door doesn't close? It just seemed like a very rude ruling to not have a counter reaction to the closing of the door. Someone will always be blocking the main entrance, so all he has to do is wait for you to attack, 5ft step back, and then his companion can close the door and latch it. That doesn't seem right to me, regardless of the actions.
Do you want to control a door when you are away from it? Based on what?
If you want to control it you advance and occupy the doorframe, you don't stay 10' away.
Which at that point, how will you ever overcome the enemy in the castle if you have to spend your standard action holding to make sure a door doesn't close? It just seemed like a very rude ruling to not have a counter reaction to the closing of the door. Someone will always be blocking the main entrance, so all he has to do is wait for you to attack, 5ft step back, and then his companion can close the door and latch it. That doesn't seem right to me, regardless of the actions.
see? this is why castle gates are not built the same way as a straw house it's made to withstand invaders. which is why serious invaders bring along their war machines (or a bare minimum of a ram).
as for actions, if the characters would have ready to push back the doors (opposed str check if i ever seen one) or actually bothered to pass\bull-rush into the castle they wouldn't have found themselves on the other side wondering how to open the gate
You are giving the analogy of shoving his body through the doorway, but a salesman puts his foot in the doorway. As stated, the PC was attacking through the doorway with a reach weapon. I don't think this should be ignored. He is threatening this range. At the least, he should get a contested strength as an AoO by stiffening his weapon and not allowing the door to close on him, but what should have happened was his weapon should have blocked the door from closing in my opinion, as reach weapons do not shrink in length unless you switch the grip. It IS in that space by RAW as he cannot attack anywhere else except at reach. That is my thought on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are giving the analogy of shoving his body through the doorway, but a salesman puts his foot in the doorway. As stated, the PC was attacking through the doorway with a reach weapon. I don't think this should be ignored. He is threatening this range. At the least, he should get a contested strength as an AoO by stiffening his weapon and not allowing the door to close on him, but what should have happened was his weapon should have blocked the door from closing in my opinion, as reach weapons do not shrink in length unless you switch the grip. It IS in that space by RAW as he cannot attack anywhere else except at reach. That is my thought on the matter.
Actually RAW really doesn't mention anything to do with the haft of a reach weapon. They're not explicitly located anywhere, and even to perform a sunder you technically need to be able to threaten the wielder of the weapon, not the "area where the weapon theoretically occupies".
Now, actually running the game this way would be dissatisfying to the player and understandably so.
How I would run it is that the weapon blocks the door from being shut completely, but it is mostly shut with the weapon trapped. With a strength check sufficiently high (items have a break DC) I would rule the door closer snaps the haft by closing the door hard enough. If not the weapon is trapped and the door not completely secured.
Presumably, the door closer would then brace themselves against the door to stop it from being opened. Then someone on the PC side could try to force the door open and it would become opposed strength checks. I probably wouldn't let it be a single check unless one side grossly exceeded the other (like maybe beat the check 10 or possibly even 20). I would instead make a number of successes required (maybe 4) and this would give an opportunity of both sides for additional people to join in and try to force the door either way.
But if you go with strict RAW (and I probably wouldn't) the reach weapon doesn't occupy any space and the door can just be closed.
It sounds like the players already attacked through the door and either missed or did not take out the defenders. That being the case it would be fairly simple for the defender to close the door as they did. If the party really wanted to prevent the door from closing Player one should have Readied an action to either attack anyone closing the door or to prevent the door form being closed. Instead, it looks like he took the opportunity to attack early and lost his chance to keep the door open.
If the players already took their turn and did not take precautions to prevent the door from being closed that is their own fault. Preventing the door from being closed from a distance would require an action of some sort, if the players don’t have the ability to make said action there is nothing they can do.
If the players were in the doorway, then closing the door would require the defender to clear the door so it could be closed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A reach weapon threatens every square 10' away from the wielder at 360°, i.e. it threatens 16 squares. And it can't be sundered in any of those squares.
The door is on the side of 1 of those squares.
It is awfully convenient to say "but my weapon is occupying the door space" without spending something (I would suggest a standard action) to effectively block that area and without risking the weapon.
I am sure that the player would have protested if an enemy had charged him from a different direction and the GM had said "you can't attack him, you are blocking the door space with your weapon".