I think I'm in agreement with Easl. If you are the lone creature "threatening" (threatening isn't actually a PF2 concept anymore) after the pincer attack I don't think it's off-guard to you. If another PC was adjacent, the creature would be off-guard to both of you because you're each providing the other that bonus.
I'm in almost this scenario in a pbp game right now, and this is my first time playing a Commander, so I appreciate helping me fully understand this too. Originally I had just thought Pincer Attack let everyone step and then granted OG, but as you're detailing, it's more complicated than that.
In our situation:
Commander uses Pincer Attack and takes his own reaction to Step adjacent to Enemy1 and Enemy2. PC2 is already adjacent to Enemy1, and PC3 is already adjacent to Enemy2. Due to terrain, PC2 and PC3 cannot step without moving away from the enemies, so they do not Step. PC4 (who is a rogue) takes the reaction to Step up to Enemy1. None of the enemies are flanked.
Is this correct?
Enemy1: OG to Commander and Rogue (thus granting Sneak Attack). Not OG to PC3 who did not take a Step.
Enemy2: OG to no one? Despite the Commander Stepping and PC2 already being adjacent to them, PC2 did not Step, so Pincer Attack doesn't grant OG? What if the Rogue has a reach weapon and thus threatens Enemy2, but isn't adjacent?
Edit: I realize a map would make this much easier to understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in almost this scenario in a pbp game right now, and this is my first time playing a Commander, so I appreciate helping me fully understand this too. Originally I had just thought Pincer Attack let everyone step and then granted OG, but as you're detailing, it's more complicated than that.
In our situation:
Commander uses Pincer Attack and takes his own reaction to Step adjacent to Enemy1 and Enemy2. PC2 is already adjacent to Enemy1, and PC3 is already adjacent to Enemy2. Due to terrain, PC2 and PC3 cannot step without moving away from the enemies, so they do not Step. PC4 (who is a rogue) takes the reaction to Step up to Enemy1. None of the enemies are flanked.Is this correct?
Enemy1: OG to Commander and Rogue (thus granting Sneak Attack). Not OG to PC3 who did not take a Step.
Enemy2: OG to no one? Despite the Commander Stepping and PC2 already being adjacent to them, PC2 did not Step, so Pincer Attack doesn't grant OG? What if the Rogue has a reach weapon and thus threatens Enemy2, but isn't adjacent?Edit: I realize a map would make this much easier to understand.
Unfortunately I think the result is that Enemy 1 is off-guard to the Commander, and Enemy 2 is off-guard to nobody.
The crux of the matter is this line:
"If any of your allies ends this movement adjacent to an opponent, that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from you and all other squadmates who responded to Pincer Attack until the start of your next turn."
In your example, only one ally responded to Pincer Attack, which is the Rogue. That ally did end up adjacent to an Enemy, which is Enemy 1. Enemy 1 will therefore be off-guard to the Commander, and all other squadmates, but as we established there are no other squadmates, because only the Rogue reacted to pincer attack. And you've said nobody is flanking, so no other off-guards.
Essentially if only one squadmate responds to Pincer Attack, then that squadmate will never benefit from off-guard provided by Pincer Attack.
Oof. The "ally" word. So if that had been "squadmates" it would be different? Squadmates includes yourself, right?
So the Commander's own Step doesn't trigger the effect, but he can still benefit from others taking the reation?
Oof. The "ally" word. So if that had been "squadmates" it would be different? Squadmates includes yourself, right?
So the Commander's own Step doesn't trigger the effect, but he can still benefit from others taking the reation?
'Squadmates' doesn't include the commander (see 'Tactic' in AoN or Battlecry! p23), but this tactic says "you and your squadmates" so seems pretty clear that for this feat's effect they include the commander in the benefit.
While squadmates are defined as allies of the commander, the Tactics class feature does mention that "You count as one of your squadmates for the purposes of participating in or benefiting from a tactic (though you do not count against your own maximum number of squadmates)."
I always interpreted the other in "other squadmates" as modifying commander, but I can see the argument for it modifying allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the Commander's own Step doesn't trigger the effect, but he can still benefit from others taking the reation?
Correct, whether the Commander steps or not doesn't matter, since whether or not they themselves end up adjacent to an enemy is irrelevant for the tactic itself. But the Commander will gain the benefit of the tact against all enemies an ally steps adjacent to, unlike his squadmates who will only benefit against enemies other squadmates end up adjacent to.
I'm not sure about the RAI here. It seems counterintuitive to demand PCs move away and then back in to get the benefit. As a GM it would be a reasonable handwave I think to say as long as you've designated them squadmates, they don't have to move if they're already next to the targets. But on the other hand, an argument could be made that the benefit is coming from the enemy not expecting the pincer, so in that respect if the squadmates all just stay exactly where they are, there's no surprise or lack of expectation on the enemy's part. Thus a GM could reasonably interpret the tactic as requiring some actual movement in order to get an opponent off-guard. It's up to your table; I don't think handwaving it would be OP but I think you're correct about that scenario and the RAW not giving OG to Enemy3 if PCs 2 and 3 don't move.
I think another issue here is that despite the tactic's name it doesn't actually require doing any kind of pincer.
If you have Enemy 1 engaged with Ally 1, and then 20 feet back you have the Commander and a block of 5 squadmates, all with ranged weapons, and the Commander calls for Pincer Attack...
Then Ally 1 Steps to still be engaged with Enemy 1, and your 5 squadmates use their Reaction to step 5 feet back (as does the Commander)...
Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.
That's not really a Pincer Attack so much as a...weasel war dance, I guess?
Technically true TheFinish, and one of the more interesting ways to use the ability.
If you have multiple ranged attackers, it only requires one person to move next to the enemy to make it off-guard to everyone else.
Though typical party compositions make it not that likely.
Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.Hmmm. I read that sentence as:
"that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from [you and all other squadmates who responded]..."
not
"that opponent is off-guard to [melee attacks from you] and all other squadmates who responded..."IOW no ranged attacks at all. But I guess the grammar supports either.
Man I somehow missed the "melee" thing there. Talk about forests and trees.
Yeah its definitely not for ranged.
One of the tricks to pincer attack is that the enemies stay off guard to everyone else until the commander's next turn, so you don't have to stay next to them to keep them off guard. In fact, you are probably often better off moving to attack an enemy who is off guard if you start your turn adjacent to one that is not. Also, it doesn't matter if your allies/squadmates take the move action or not. The player chooses to respond to the tactic or not. They might chose not to if the commander is going to issue another tactic in the same round, but if not, then the allies can respond to the tactic even if they can't move.
Hmm, yes, if I were to re-write it, I would only have it apply to squadmates who Stepped and ended adjacent to an enemy (not nec the same one though) rather than being able to Step away and then get the benefit.
But that's not what it actually says.
Also, it doesn't matter if your allies/squadmates take the move action or not. The player chooses to respond to the tactic or not.
What do you mean by this? It clearly matters if they don't take the reaction because then no one gets any benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether the squad mate steps or not doesn’t determine whether they responded to the commander’s tactic. Players might chose not to respond if the commander is going to issue a different tactic to them, but if the commander is not, than even if the squad mate can’t move, they have responded to the tactic and can count the affected enemy as off guard to their melee attacks on their turn.
Whether the squad mate steps or not doesn’t determine whether they responded to the commander’s tactic.
Is this stated anywhere? Because a thorough read of the Commander doesn't specify one way or the other.
Except for Mountaineering Training and Naval Training, I'd assume "responding" to a tactic is doing what the tactic tells you to do: Stepping in Pincer Attack, Interacting to Reload with Reload!, Raising a Shield with Shields Up!, etc.
But you're saying a squadmate can say "I respond to this tactic" and then do nothing? Aside from the fact that I don't think this does anything except with Pincer Attack, I can't find anything that supports this reading. is it elsewhere in Battlecry?
Pincer attack says the squad mate can step. Not that they do step or must step. In order to make the choice to step or not they have to first respond to the tactic. The enemy becoming off guard is contingent on someone stepping next to them, but they are then off guard to all the responding allies regardless. The tactics trait explains what responding means, but it is a simple choice on the part of the player. So it could even just be one ally who steps and makes an enemy off guard to every other squad mate who responds, and it is still a useful ability. It is definitely one of my favorite tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pincer attack says the squad mate can step. Not that they do step or must step. In order to make the choice to step or not they have to first respond to the tactic. The enemy becoming off guard is contingent on someone stepping next to them, but they are then off guard to all the responding allies regardless. The tactics trait explains what responding means, but it is a simple choice on the part of the player. So it could even just be one ally who steps and makes an enemy off guard to every other squad mate who responds, and it is still a useful ability. It is definitely one of my favorite tactics.
All tactics are a "can" clause (except the aforementioned Trainings, which are sort of general buffs). None of them say a squadmate must do X. Hence, squadmates have a choice to respond (by doing X) or not respond (by not doing X).
The tactics trait doesn't say what responding means. It says to use a tactic you must have squadmates and those squadmates have to be able to perceive you, among other tihngs:
The only time responding is even mentioned is that you can only do so to one tactic per round.
In the case of Pincer Attack, responding to it means using your Reaction to Step. I don't see any reading that indicates otherwise.
My reading is that each player must decide to respond to the tactic before any character starts performing the action or not. If someone steps where you were going to step you don’t get to retroactively not respond to the call, you responded, but did not take the ensuing action.
If you had to step to benefit from the ability then the tactic should specify that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems like a very generous reading of the rules.
Even if I agreed, I would definitely argue that it would use up their reaction.
My reading is that each player must decide to respond to the tactic before any character starts performing the action or not. If someone steps where you were going to step you don’t get to retroactively not respond to the call, you responded, but did not take the ensuing action.
If you had to step to benefit from the ability then the tactic should specify that.
I see. I personally disagree but if that's how you want to run it, that's fine.
I can see how there is some ambiguity here and it would be awesome to see this addressed in a FAQ. I think Roaring Charge might be the only other tactic with a similar ambiguity about whether movement is required to count as a responding squad mate.
My main issue with that argument is simply that responding in English implies doing something to respond.
If you do rule they can respond without stepping, bear in mind that they still can't benefit from another tactic that turn.
The question to me is about the ally who cannot step, or could until someone else stepped into the only place the character could. It seems weird to say that pincer attack has a prerequisite that a squad mate must be able to step in order to benefit from the ability, especially if they were going to step but an ally stepped into the only place the character could step. That feels a little retroactively countering to the character’s choice.
I do agree that responding to a tactic, whether you end up engaging in the optional actions involved or not, means you can’t respond to any other tactics.
Responding to a tactic and getting no benefit except one or more enemies are now off guard to you doesn’t feel like a game breaking exploit to me. The commander could have just spent an action tripping a foe or moving into a flanking position. As a GM, I wouldn’t make the player pay their reaction for that benefit, but even for those that do the commander can grant a free reaction to an ally so it’s probably fine balance wise either way.
The question to me is about the ally who cannot step, or could until someone else stepped into the only place the character could. It seems weird to say that pincer attack has a prerequisite that a squad mate must be able to step in order to benefit from the ability, especially if they were going to step but an ally stepped into the only place the character could step. That feels a little retroactively countering to the character’s choice.
I do agree that responding to a tactic, whether you end up engaging in the optional actions involved or not, means you can’t respond to any other tactics.
Responding to a tactic and getting no benefit except one or more enemies are now off guard to you doesn’t feel like a game breaking exploit to me. The commander could have just spent an action tripping a foe or moving into a flanking position. As a GM, I wouldn’t make the player pay their reaction for that benefit, but even for those that do the commander can grant a free reaction to an ally so it’s probably fine balance wise either way.
If an ally cannot step, then they should get no benefit. I mean if you're immobilised you can't respond to any tactic that says you can Stride/Step, how is this any different? If a player's character is Grabbed, would you allow them to spend the reaction anyway? I don't see how "I can't move but I'll benefit from this tactic that is predicated on people moving" makes a ton of sense.
An ally blocking your movement is something to discuss with the table, ideally, but yeah its perfectly fine to say "Nah I'm not responding, Mike took the place I was going to use so I just won't step." That's not retroactively countering anything so much as good table manners. It's like going "I'm going to cast fireball" and a friend goes "Dude I'm gonna be in the AoE" and the caster going "Oh my bad I'll cast lightning bolt instead". If the GM went "No you said you were casting fireball, so now you have to cast it" we'd all think they're bananas.
And sure it's not a huge deal with Pincer Attack. It's more a problem with Thundering Charge and/or any future Tactics they might print.
The question to me is about the ally who cannot step, or could until someone else stepped into the only place the character could. It seems weird to say that pincer attack has a prerequisite that a squad mate must be able to step in order to benefit from the ability, especially if they were going to step but an ally stepped into the only place the character could step. That feels a little retroactively countering to the character’s choice.
But that's not unique to Pincer Attack or any Tactic. That's about turn-based combat or not being able to be in the same square as someone else. You could say the same about someone before you in initiative flanking an enemy, and you say, "I was going to go there, but now I can't." You don't get the flanking bonus because of your intent. It is true that there's not a specific order to resolve multiple simultaneous reactions, so adjudicating who gets to Step into the same space could be an issue.
It seems that this is more about what is "responding" to the tactic. If a Commander issues a tactic, and one character Steps, one verbally says, "Yes, sir!", and one raises a weapon in salute, all three have "responded" in some form. Indeed some other abilities like Dirty Trick or Bon Mot or the Sickened condition mention doing things that otherwise have no game value. It just seems to me like that wasn't the intent. The rest of us are reading it to say:
"...that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from you and all other squadmates who responded to Pincer Attack (by taking a reaction to Step) until the start of your next turn."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of people here claiming that since you don't count as your own ally, the Commander can't be their own squadmate, but this isn't quite true.
You count as one of your squadmates for the purposes of participating in or benefiting from a tactic (though you do not count against your own maximum number of squadmates).