So this came up tonight where our party fighter suffered the Fleeing condition due to an Owlbear's Bloodcurdling Screech. As the GM I read this as fleeing at the fastest possible rate, meaning Stride actions. My player thought he should be able to use Step as well to avoid a possible AoO.
Was I in error here? Expediently as possible seems fairly plain to me as meaning as fast as possible, meaning no Step,
You're forced to run away due to fear or some other compulsion. On your turn, you must spend each of your actions trying to escape the source of the fleeing condition as expediently as possible (such as by using move actions to flee, or opening doors barring your escape). The source is usually the effect or caster that gave you the condition, though some effects might define something else as the source. You can't Delay or Ready while fleeing.
Is all we have to go on.
Expediently means quickly and practically. Over to you. I'd allow a step. Especially as the Owlbear doesn't have an AoO.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also rule that you could not use a step action when you are fleeing. A careful step is not fleeing, the word itself implies panic, and when you are panicking, you are not being careful. You are moving away from the source of that panic as quickly as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player might want to be able to Step now, but will they want NPCs to be able to Step when the party sets up that situation, complete with AoOs?
--
Jared, I think that definition address neither haste nor care.
If anything, Stride does a better job of "achieving a particular end" (fleeing, getting as much distance as possible from one's enemy) then Step does. So they'd Stride.
That said, I might let them take actions to avoid obvious dangers, but as Lia pointed out, Fleeing is painted more as panic than withdrawing tactically (which is what I think a Step would fall under).
If that seems too severe, remember this is a crit failure, so yeah, those are harsh. And the devs were kind enough not to give Owlbears an AoO to capitalize on it. (Not sure I'd want to be able to return in one round anyway, likely at Frightened 2!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fleeing is a very bad effect all by itself. Because of the loss of actions.You have basically lost all 3 actions on your next turn due to it. But if you are a martial character and are primarily melee being able to step may mean that you end up only 2 movse away from the melee. This is important as 3 moves away may effectively waste a second whole turn as well.
All I'm trying to say is the difference can be important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm leaning towards no step, as that seems much more controlled than the fear induced terror you character should have. Look at bloodcurddling screech. It has the fear, emotion, and mental traits. You are afraid, terrified. You're not controlling your movement, you're out of your mind with fear in a panic.
I might considering allowing players to do, with the understanding that NPCs will be able to do the same as well.
Of course, in my groups games the "default" is that no one is allowed to presume or even think a specific character (whether player or enemy) has an Attack of Opportunity (or similar ability) until it is demonstrated in a fight, or identified (in monsters), or if a character is know by the opposition to have such an ability somehow.
Basically we treat having an AoO as a relative uncommon and rare ability, so it's not something people regular expect to deal with.
In this case, owlbear's don't even have an AoO so if the players were familiar with owlbears, I would say they had even less reason to try to step.
Ultimately, to be honest I'm suspicious that the players know striding away 3 times is terrible for their character and is hoping to mitigate it by not moving as far.
In first edition, you could use the withdraw action to flee. Stepping and then striding is now how this is represented. You still have enough presence of mind to open doors, so why not to back away?
I mean you already lose all three actions, does it really need an extra layer of arbitrary punishment.
Doubt that devs referenced that 1E concept when deciding this, but are you going to impose that Step on all fleeing creatures? What if the victim needs to Step twice since they remain in Reach? Three times? What about the reach of other enemies?
Little of this counts as "expeditious" re: fleeing.Nor would I count opening a door while escaping as requiring the tactical awareness which a Step out of a possible AoO threat would require.
And fleeing all three actions is the opposite of arbitrary. Jeesh. And yes, I agree it's severe, coming off a crit failure and such. Most crit failures at even early levels will take you out that long if not longer.
Fleeing is already a very bad action killer. Provided my player wasn't trying to abuse Step, I would allow it.
Already, we have the precedent of Forced Movement not triggering reactions. Is Fleeing any different? Allowing Step sidesteps that debate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "fleeing" creature just carefully stepping three times for a total of 15ft against an enemy with a long reach feels off to me. Since there is no reasonable in-between (drawing the line at, say, one step makes zero sense when the whole point is avoiding attacks of opportunity and the enemy's reach is obvious), I lean toward disallowing steps altogether.
A "fleeing" creature just carefully stepping three times for a total of 15ft against an enemy with a long reach feels off to me. Since there is no reasonable in-between (drawing the line at, say, one step makes zero sense when the whole point is avoiding attacks of opportunity and the enemy's reach is obvious), I lean toward disallowing steps altogether.
For most creatures reach is obvious. That would be a reasonable line.
A "fleeing" creature just carefully stepping three times for a total of 15ft against an enemy with a long reach feels off to me. Since there is no reasonable in-between (drawing the line at, say, one step makes zero sense when the whole point is avoiding attacks of opportunity and the enemy's reach is obvious), I lean toward disallowing steps altogether.
Plus the creature might have allies, or a cornered victim might have to escape around the enemy w/ normal reach where taking 3 Steps keeps you adjacent. Crit fail wastes two rounds of actions sounds reasonable IMO, maybe even deserves burning a Hero Point much like other crit fails do.
ETA: It struck me that ultimately it might be wiser, when Frightened 3, not to end one's turn within attack range (accounting for context). You'd recover to Frightened 2, maybe take a full attack routine, then have -2 response on your own turn. Complete mindless fleeing while so badly penalized might be the devs being nice. :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels too much like PCs trying to cheese their way into not being 3 actions away from the fight. You are fleeing in terror. No steps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing in the fleeing condition that says you lose tactical awareness because of terror. This is a forced tactical retreat due to fear, and NOT the mindless grip of overwhelming terror.
You move away from the source of your fear, in a way that doesn't put you in more immediate danger. Players should be able to still tactically chose where to run too. Behind a pillar, a door, etc are all perfectly expedient. Top three synonyms: Prudent, Desirable, and wise all indicate tactical awareness is still present.
Except that it does not say that at all. There is no caveat, at all, about not putting the fleeing person in more immediate danger.
"You're forced to run away due to fear or some other compulsion. On your turn, you must spend each of your actions trying to escape the source of the fleeing condition as expediently as possible (such as by using move actions to flee, or opening doors barring your escape). The source is usually the effect or caster that gave you the condition, though some effects might define something else as the source. You can't Delay or Ready while fleeing."
There is nothing in the condition that even begins to hint that it is a "forced tactical retreat due to fear."
What about the frightened condition itself? Well, here it is from the CrB:
"You’re gripped by fear and struggle to control your nerves. The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to this value to all your checks and DCs. Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of your frightened condition decreases by 1."
Just think about that for a minute. You are so scared that /everything/ you do is worse.
There is nothing in either condition that would indicate that a character is able to make a tactical, 5 foot step. Everything about both shows the character is terrified. At Frightened 1 and 2, they hold it together. At 3 or more, most of the time, they actually are in terror, hence the forced fleeing action.
What gets you to that condition? It's almost always a critical failure on a save against a spell or creature effect. If anything, fleeing for 1 round is generous. If you crit fail a save against dragon fear, are you stopping running after just 6 seconds? Probably not.
Now, if your table wants to nerf fear that's the choice of your table. Just don't be upset when the GM has that think with 20' reach step three times for its 'fleeing' and then kill a PC with an AoO because it's still in reach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the disconnect in this thread is:
One side is saying "If we can't control how my character flees, it's absolutely terrible! I could take AoO and get so far away from combat I basically waste two rounds from fleeing and returning!" and the other side saying "Yeah, crit fails are rough. But it only happens on a crit fail."
Go and compare the critical fail result for other things, and you will find that they are equally nasty. Crits fails are tough.
And for me, the idea of remaining tactically aware doesn't mesh with the abject terror your character is supposed to be experiencing.
|
In AV one of my creatures crit failed against Fear. Here's what happened:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think splitting hairs over word definitions is rather misleading here when the implications of those words is highly sensitive to context. Expedient may mean a convenient or advantageous, but morally ambiguous means of achieving your goal but quoting synonyms without understanding the nuance of the original is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as breaking down the roots of expedient to declare that the escape must be done on foot.
I would likewise rule that an expedient retreat must be done by taking which ever action gets you the farthest from the source of fleeing by the end of that action if you can help it, such as by running around an obstacle rather than spending several actions trying to climb that object. Fleeing causes you to want to get away from the source so badly that you will simply leave the situation in a panic until you can get a hold of yourself. I would not buy that thus means you will stop on the way out and decide "that foe has not used a reactive attack since it last moved and there is a chance I might be stuck by such an attack if I run now, I should wait before fleeing to step out of their range". You just hope if they swing, they're not going to hit you and run even faster because of it
The condition is "Fleeing" not "Retreating",You do realize these are synonyms right?
You do realize that English is a context-based language, right?
To be clear, none of those arguing to allow a step have ever said you can just make three steps. That was a straw-man argument put forth by the other side.
What has been said, is that they should be able to step out of immediate danger (AOEs) before fleeing and avoid other obvious dangers. If the cleric is 60 feet away from the source of the fear then yes than is a valid place to end up.
How is it a strawman when your second paragraph absolutely implies that two or three steps need to be allowed in the case of creatures with (obvious) reach? Just because you refuse to make it explicit, that doesn't mean it's not inherent in your argument.
Also, I see you're putting a lot of weight on the word "expediently", so why not apply that same weight to other parts of the condition, say to the first sentence: "You're forced to run away [...]"? Stepping is not running.
I think this thread is going to result in the following (both sides saying to the other):
"You do you, but I don't think your interpretation/stance is reasonable."
Short of a dev chiming in, it's clear we're not getting anywhere arguing of the minutiae of definitions of words and what they are or aren't equivalent to.
I would allow the character to do any action that moves away from the source of fear, just as if they had chosen to abandon all allies are preserve their own lives. Dodging fires avoiding AOEs, etc.
I agree that everything that needed to be said has been said, but I still want to point out that this exact wording necessarily allows the "three actions to step" situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I would disagree with this assertion. Staying in range for another full round of attacks is not what a character would do if choosing to preserve their own life, and does not meet the definition of expedient. I wouldn't allow it.I would allow the character to do any action that moves away from the source of fear, just as if they had chosen to abandon all allies are preserve their own lives. Dodging fires avoiding AOEs, etc.I agree that everything that needed to be said has been said, but I still want to point out that this exact wording necessarily allows the "three actions to step" situation.
But the point is for those of us on the "you can't step at all side" the argument that you could only take one step because that makes sense doesn't hold water if you turn around and say you can't take 3. In my view, 1 step or 3 steps works out similarly in terms of "expedience". Neither is fleeing or expedient in my opinion. I can't reckon any way in which only 1 step is allowed without allowing all actions to be steps if the player chose. And because of that, I can't imagine steps being allowed at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Retreating is a controlled withdrawal in the face of danger.
This just isn't true. Look at the definition of rout once: "A rout is a panicked, disorderly and undisciplined retreat of troops from a battlefield, following a collapse in a given unit's command authority, unit cohesion and combat morale."
"a disorderly retreat of defeated troops."
"a state of wild confusion or disorderly retreat."
"a confused and disorderly retreat from a place."
"A disorderly retreat or flight following defeat."
But AoO (I think you meant to say instead of AoE) are relatively uncommon to rare. Only fighters get it by default. Some other classes can get it via feat. And remember PCs are special, not representative of the world in general.
And then look at the bestiary, I don't know the percentage of monsters that do and don't have AoO exactly, but I know it's a low percentage that do.
It was a deliberate change from PF1.
And honestly, avoiding the potential AoO bothers me a lot less than the fact that it should basically cause you to waste your turn (at least if you're melee) due to running so far away. By stepping, and depending on how enemies are around you, you may not waste your whole next turn. That part is actually far more of the issue to me than whether or not you get hit with an AoO.
I have no patience for this stepping while fleeing nonsense. I would not even humor the argument at my table.
Retreat != Rout
You missing the point spectacularly. Rout IS a kind of retreat: this is a fact I found in different places [including several dictionaries] that specifically use that term. Now what is or isn't common military parlance is beside the point when we are talking about common language in general. PF2 isn't written in a way requiring us to parse military vs non-military wording.
That said, I don't recall that there is a specific military definition of either term. A military withdrawal can be a tactical withdrawal, a rout or a feigning withdrawal and all are kinds of retreat.
So for both reasons I continue to disagree with your assertion.
On the question of fleeing, I see nothing in the condition that would prevent a Step: the example of escaping expediently is "using move actions to flee" and Step qualifies. And it's not mindless terror, as the other example is opening doors which requires manipulation and not fleeing at top speed. This means you could, for instance, spend actions to tie a rope off to rappel down a cliff or similar things [you're using interact to open a door or tie a rope]: you aren't required to leap off cliffs or cool-aid man through doors using Force Open.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no patience for this stepping while fleeing nonsense. I would not even humor the argument at my table.
I get that life is short and the GM should just decide quickly, but that is pretty intolerant.
It is not clear from the description of the condition the degree of panic in the victim. Quite a range is possible. I mean the spell doesn't require you to drop everything as a free action does it?
I understand where you are coming from and respect your position, and give you full points for politeness in our disagreements. But as I said, I don't think either of us is going to change our position here and it boils down to two fundamental differences in philosophy: what fleeing actually means (terror versus retreat), what expedient means (speed vs safety). Happy gaming to you.
I can happily agree to respectfully disagree. Happy gaming to you as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with saying you'd do the safe tactical thing is the safe tactical thing is usually to keep helping your friends take down the enemy, not waste a bunch of actions running away and then running back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone Fleeing very well might try to "cool-aid man" a door before realizing it's a pull instead of a push though (which is why public venues have 'panic bar' style exit doors).
While I find most of your argument pertinent to drawing the distinction between different levels of panicked fleeing, I feel this point is inaccurate. While it may be true that there are times when a person is so scared that they forget how to interact with basic objects around them, the panic bar isn't designed so much for what happens when one person flees but when a crowd flees, adding mass to the equation that would make it difficult for the people at the front to open the door with the added pressure of all the bodies behind them crushing them against the door.