Hello,
are there an advantage to be in the same square as an ally ?
Is it similar to Daredevil's Gambit ?
You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, .... If any creature other than your target hits you with an attack roll while you are sharing your target’s space, attempt a DC 15 flat check. On a success, resolve the attack against the target instead of you, using the same attack roll result that hit you.
Thanks to your answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
are there an advantage to be in the same square as an ally ?
Is it similar to Daredevil's Gambit ?
You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, .... If any creature other than your target hits you with an attack roll while you are sharing your target’s space, attempt a DC 15 flat check. On a success, resolve the attack against the target instead of you, using the same attack roll result that hit you.Thanks to your answer.
You can normally only share an ally's space very briefly.
You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).
So you can't end your turn there, and you have to immediately move if you end a move action there.
So maybe there is some edge case where Attack of Opportunity could hit someone during the brief time that two allies share a space.
There is also the scenario of creatures of unusual size. Allies of very different size can share a space, but I don't think they can both fight effectively. I'm not entirely clear on the rules of that.
But unless there is something that actually lists special rules to use in this scenario, I would go with Daredevil's Gambit being an exception rather than a normal thing that combatants do. So no bonuses or penalties or risk of mis-targeting for reactions used to attack two allies sharing a space. Or combatants sharing a space during Tumble Through or something like that.
|
You can move through the space of a willing creature. If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through that creature’s space using Acrobatics. You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).
1. There is no inherent advantage to being in the same square as an ally. Daredevil's Gambit is not a general rule that applies to anything else.
2. Normally, you can't stay in the same square as an ally. You can end your movement action there if your next action is to keep moving and get out of their square or if the ally is both prone and one of: willing, unconscious or dead.
3. The square your prone ally is in might be advantageous because of which square it is, not because your ally is there.
4. If you have some specific ability in mind that allows you to stay in the same position as your ally, that ability may include some other advantage, but please include the ability as part of the question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darn, ninja'd by 2 minutes =D
Given the way the forums have been behaving for a few months now, it is still debatable which of us actually submitted first.
There are the following ancestries feats :
Shinstabber and Overcrowd, close quarters.
Heh. And all of those feats state a benefit of being able to end your movement sharing a space. Which is a standard rule available to anyone as long as they immediately move out of that space. What it probably means and what it implies by the rest of the wording of the feat is that you can end your turn sharing a space with an ally. And probably fight effectively in that limited space.
But in all of those cases, it doesn't list any additional changes to the standard rules like Daredevil's Gambit does. So it still sounds to me like Daredevil's Gambit is an exception to the standard rules and those other feats do not add anything like that. Feats try to do what they say that they do and don't do what they don't say.
So it still sounds to me like Daredevil's Gambit is an exception to the standard rules and those other feats do not add anything like that. Feats try to do what they say that they do and don't do what they don't say.But then these two feats are literally and totally useless.
Which two?
Daring Act and Daredevil's Gambit both have things that they say that they do.
Shinstabber, Overcrowd, and Close Quarters? Yes, those are worded a bit strangely. Like I said, RAI it probably intends that you can end your movement sharing space with an ally, then continue your actions unrestricted and even end your turn in that space.
It doesn't actually say that the ally can share their space with you on their turn though either. So they may have to immediately move out of that space. But that is probably also not intended.
But yeah. Strictly reading them as-written, they really don't do a lot.
Hello,
are there an advantage to be in the same square as an ally ?
Is it similar to Daredevil's Gambit ?
You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, .... If any creature other than your target hits you with an attack roll while you are sharing your target’s space, attempt a DC 15 flat check. On a success, resolve the attack against the target instead of you, using the same attack roll result that hit you.Thanks to your answer.
The GM can give you a cover bonus. Or perhaps something similar to the mounted combat modifiers. All at his discretion.
It doesn't actually say that the ally can share their space with you on their turn though either. So they may have to immediately move out of that space. But that is probably also not intended.
But yeah. Strictly reading them as-written, they really don't do a lot.
I see what you are saying but that is a fairly perverse way of thwarting the point of those feats. Its not a sane way to play. Don't do it.
I see what you are saying but that is a fairly perverse way of thwarting the point of those feats. Its not a sane way to play. Don't do it.
Fully agree with that. Run an actual game with something that works.
|
OP conveniently left vital parts out of Daredevil's Gambit, here's the full text:
If you critically succeed at your Daring Act, you can enter the target’s space and remain there until the beginning of your next turn or until the target moves, whichever comes first. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, and your target is flat-footed against your attacks while you are sharing its space in this way. If any creature other than your target hits you with an attack roll while you are sharing your target’s space, attempt a DC 15 flat check. On a success, resolve the attack against the target instead of you, using the same attack roll result that hit you.
The bonus only applies while sharing the space of your enemy when you enter their space with this feat.
are there an advantage to be in the same square as an ally ? [snip]You can normally only share an ally's space very briefly.
You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).So you can't end your turn there, and you have to immediately move if you end a move action there.
So maybe there is some edge case where Attack of Opportunity could hit someone during the brief time that two allies share a space.
There is also the scenario of creatures of unusual size. Allies of very different size can share a space, but I don't think they can both fight effectively. I'm not entirely clear on the rules of that.
But unless there is something that actually lists special rules to use in this scenario, I would go with Daredevil's Gambit being an exception rather than a normal thing that combatants do. So no bonuses or penalties or risk of mis-targeting for reactions used to attack two allies sharing a space. Or combatants sharing a space during Tumble Through or something like that.
There are some other times I'd say that two allies can share a space and fight, but the only advantage would be a positional one, like sharing a flanking bonus with a third ally.
* Tiny creatures must end their move actions in a square with an enemy if they wish to do a melee strike next. They can even ride a larger ally, at the cost of one action apiece. So a tiny PC should be able share a square with a small- or medium-sized PC, but maybe at that one-action penalty apiece for dodging each other.
* A flying PC at least 5 feet up can share a horizontal square with an ally. (Maybe higher, but I think in terms of 5-feet cubes.)
I bet the OP is thinking of "back-to-back fighting," a staple of literature & movies. In first ed, there was a Teamwork feat called "Back to Back," but it required an adjacent ally, not one in your square, and only applied if you were flanked. (And of course, both of you had to burn a feat slot for a very niche situation.) Given that Pathfinder has no facing, back-to-back fighting is not as important for us as it would be in a game where enemies could get a bonus to hit from the side or rear.
Note to the devs: I hope that if you create teamwork feats, each will permit the PC that takes it to get the benefits with regular allies (not chance-met new friends), even if the ally hasn't burned a feat-slot too.