Nauseated flanking

[Wycen]

In our game Sunday most of our party ran away from an encounter in which they failed Fort saves and got nauseated and/or we discovered we were in a wild magic zone and 4 of our 6 characters are magic oriented.

So my summoner's eidolon, which also failed the Fort save and so was nauseated was moving to help the ranger try to flank the defending monster. At first this seemed like a legitimate move, but as we discussed the battle and waited for something to die we sort of came to the consensus that sense a nauseated character can't attack, he thus can't threaten a defender and thus doesn't provide a flanking bonus.

Now, I'd like to actually read this in the rules but can't seem to find an explicit rule about this. Can anyone point me to the chain of rules that I can read and thus confirm what we thinks makes sense? Or if you can disprove this, then I'd like to see what supports such an interpretation.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

You guys are correct that you cannot gain flanking with a nauseated character or NPC.

Rules:

Nauseated - Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

Flanking - When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Threatened - You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Now let's got through it step by step.

In order to flank:

• You need to threaten and be able to attack
• Now if you are nauseated, you are UNABLE to attack, ONLY able to move.
• So this means you are UNABLE to threaten and UNABLE to flank.
• Your group is correct.

 

[jefgorbach]

True, however since the foe doesnt know you cant attack it should continue consider your adjacent allies potential threats and react accordingly, thus providing you with the circumstantial flanking bonus.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

True, however since the foe doesnt know you cant attack it should continue consider your adjacent allies potential threats and react accordingly, thus providing you with the circumstantial flanking bonus.

Not by RAW it doesn't

Read the RAW that I pointed out, it doesn't matter that the enemy "doesn't know." This is black and white, you CANNOT threaten if you CANNOT attack and thus CANNOT flank, it's that simple. They all rely on each other to work. The other thing is that the enemy would probably know you were extremely sick if you are sitting there barely moving and nearly puking every step you take, enemies aren't stupid most of the time.

If you want to house-rule it in your game that the enemy is a mindless automaton and doesn't know, then go for it, it's your game. Don't tell others that they can do something that isn't RAW.

 

[Wycen]

Everything Traveon pointed out I've seen before. It is part of why I asked -because the whole "threatened" business is under the Attack of Opportunity subheader and thus not explicitly linked to Flanking. You would think the word "threaten" appearing in the text about flanking would be enough but it is because you jump through these 3 different text sources that I wonder if maybe this is a case they didn't consider.

I know from searching the Paizo forum that other interesting conversation pop up regarding flanking or nausea, but not both, so maybe it's just me

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Everything Traveon pointed out I've seen before. It is part of why I asked -because the whole "threatened" business is under the Attack of Opportunity subheader and thus not explicitly linked to Flanking. You would think the word "threaten" appearing in the text about flanking would be enough but it is because you jump through these 3 different text sources that I wonder if maybe this is a case they didn't consider.

I know from searching the Paizo forum that other interesting conversation pop up regarding flanking or nausea, but not both, so maybe it's just me

I'd just have to go back to nauseated then - Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

To flank, you need to threaten and to threaten you need to be able to attack. If you are unable to attack, you are unable to threaten and that means you are unable to flank. It's really simple, don't read too much into it Wycen. It doesn't have to spell it out again because it already is when you read the nauseated condition which I quoted again and that's where you stop looking into it for any kind of loop holes or any other explanation, it has already been considered and it's done because you can't do anything other than move when you are nauseated.

 

[enrious]

I'd just have to go back to nauseated then - Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

To flank, you need to threaten and to threaten you need to be able to attack. If you are unable to attack, you are unable to threaten and that means you are unable to flank. It's really simple, don't read too much into it Wycen. It doesn't have to spell it out again because it already is when you read the nauseated condition which I quoted again and that's where you stop looking into it for any kind of loop holes or any other explanation, it has already been considered and it's done because you can't do anything other than move when you are nauseated.

This.

To Flank, you have to Threaten. To Threaten, you have to be capable of making an attack.

Nauseated prevents you from attacking. Therefore you can't Threaten. Therefore you can't Flank.


The reason they didn't spell it out is because the rules build upon themself and they didn't want the book to be 1,800 pages because they listed out every possible combination of events for every circumstance. It's also why you only see Threatened in one place - because they had to pick somewhere to put it and they didn't want to copy/paste the exact rule every other paragraph.

In Pathfinder, when they establish a definition, that definition means the same thing, regardless of where it's invoked.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, flanking still happens. Would you want to get puked on?! I thought not! Better keep an eye on the purple dude.

Seriously, though...don't try to apply too much "logic" or "realism" to the flanking rules. Combat as a whole is abstracted, and flanking in particular is heavily abstracted. Just think of it as payback for the flanking bonus -- +2 to hit -- being woefully weaker than the advantage having a foe boxed in from 2 sides should actually be granting, if it still bothers you.

I've seen the "can't attack = not threatening" reasoning before. It fails. If that were true, you would cease to threaten upon using up your last AoO for the round, and cease to provide flanking to allies. And that's just not how the game works.

 

[Super Pony]

I've seen the "can't attack = not threatening" reasoning before. It fails. If that were true, you would cease to threaten upon using up your last AoO for the round, and cease to provide flanking to allies. And that's just not how the game works.

It really doesn't fail though... Check out the wording on threatened squares in the core rule book pg 180 (5th printing pdf): "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." You don't cease to threaten a square just because you don't have an attack of opportunity locked and loaded in the chamber. Threatening is its own little check box in the grand scheme of things.

If you can make an attack (as in the mechanically allowed theoretical possibility of making an attack), then you threaten (put a check in the box), even when another participant in the combat is acting. If you are nauseated you cannot attack, which would preclude you from continuing to threaten (uncheck the box) anything until you are no longer nauseated.

 

[enrious]

I've seen the "can't attack = not threatening" reasoning before. It fails. If that were true, you would cease to threaten upon using up your last AoO for the round, and cease to provide flanking to allies. And that's just not how the game works.

Interesting point, Stream.

I found a post of yours and wanted to get some clarification from you regarding your position:

For an example where you could not AoO, look at Nauseated condition. Even though you're still able to take some actions, you cannot attack, so you could not AoO.

Source: paizo.com - Rules Questions: Is an AOO an action.

I note for those that don't follow the link that Stream was responding to a question of what kind of Action is an AoO and the conversation tangentially invoked a definition of Threatened.

Stream, do I read your position correctly if I think that in the situation you described, the only reason the Nauseated character would be unable to AoO is because the Nauseated condition specifically says it allows no attacks? In other words, the Nauseated character still threatens; you were limiting your answer to address Actions only?