Level Up (A5E) Press the Attack/Fall Back update

[Rune]

Following these points there's still another thing to consider, to be very picky.
The attacker uses its full movement, then uses PtA.
The defender uses FB and yields ground, 5ft. The attacker could move 5 ft, but is the movement given by FB "extra", or can be taken only if you actually have spare movement left?
Otherwise, if you cannot move more than your normal movement, the defender could skip one entire round worth of melee attacks with a single reaction, assuming the attacker has no particularly long reach

I think it must be extra movement, because there’s no reason to include it in the description otherwise; if you have movement left, you can move closer anyway.

 

[MarkB]

I think it must be extra movement, because there’s no reason to include it in the description otherwise; if you have movement left, you can move closer anyway.

But not without provoking opportunity attacks.

 

[Rune]

But not without provoking opportunity attacks.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase: I think it must be extra movement, because there’s no reason to include it in the description otherwise; if you have movement left, you can move closer anyway the description says it is part of the attacker’s [presumably bonus] action. If the intent is that the 5 ft costs movement, it should say: “…if the attacker has movement left.”

(Actually, it would be better as: “If the attacker then moves into the space vacated by the defender on their turn, that movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.)

But, also: Fall Back grants extra movement, why shouldn’t Press the Attack?

 

[MarkB]

Fair enough. Let me rephrase: I think it must be extra movement, because there’s no reason to include it in the description otherwise; if you have movement left, you can move closer anyway the description says it is part of the attacker’s [presumably bonus] action. If the intent is that the 5 ft costs movement, it should say: “…if the attacker has movement left.”

(Actually, it would be better as: “If the attacker then moves into the space vacated by the defender on their turn, that movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.)

But, also: Fall Back grants extra movement, why shouldn’t Press the Attack?

Actually, it's not part of the bonus action at all. It's granted by the reaction.

That said, I agree it makes sense as being extra movement.

 

[Rune]

Actually, it's not part of the bonus action at all. It's granted by the reaction.

That said, I agree it makes sense as being extra movement.

Surely if the movement is part of someone else’s reaction, it has to be extra!

(But I don’t think that’s right. The relevant line from Fall Back: “As part of its action, your attacker can move 5 feet towards you.” That must mean the bonus action Press the Attack, since that is what triggers Fall Back.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd rule it that if the defender can't Fall Back, you can't press the attack in the first place. And in other situations where the conditions allow the maneuvers, that are initiated, and then the Attack, movement, or anything else becomes impossible, you just lose the action (or whatever). You can't Press the Attack unless both you and your target have a speed of 5' or greater, but the maneuvers involved don't take any of either of your movements.

The point I'm seeing here is that this is about a movement motivating series of blows. You are stepping forward at your target while swinging, trying to force them back.

So if someone is grappled or unconscious, no Press the Attack allowed.

If there is a wall behind them, it screws up the trajectory of the maneuver and it can't happen. If you don't know it (lets say you can't see the wall) you have already committed to attacking. You lose your bonus action and you Attack normally without the benefits or penalties of Press the Attack.

If they can move back but don't want to, that is them choosing not to Fall Back, which means they awkwardly try to hold you off, which gives you the expertise die and other elements of Press the Attack.

You can Press the Attack at someone by a cliff, since they can choose to Fall Back right off the cliff, and everything works as normal. If for some unusual reason they do Fall Back and fall off, you lose your Attack. But you just got them to jump off a cliff so it wasn't a wasn't really a waste. If they Fall Back and can fly, you can go ahead and make your attacks at them, since they are still within your reach.

I would probably allow you to choose not to follow them, but then you lose the Attack (and of course your action because it was committed) while still taking the penalties from Press the Attack.

 

[lichmaster]

I'm not sure this discussion will ever terminate, unless the designers weight in for the exact and complete purposes of PtA and Fallback.
What we know so far is that the intent of PtA is to either push the target 5ft bak or gaining expertise, and vice versa for FB. I like the idea of it, but given 5e's more lose definitions we may never get to a wording that's exhaustive and unequivocal.

As I stated as the beginning, in my regular DMing, I'd see PtA and FB as lockstep movement that does not trigger any OA. I'd rule that you can decide to PtA wrt one target, and commit at least one attack against it, to avoid the unintentional side effect of it becoming a feint maneuver.
In case FB cannot happen because of any physical restriction, than I'd rule PtA can happen and does thus automatically grant expertise to the attacker: after all being cornered means you have less defensive options. This will also make tactics like standing in front of a chokepoint a bit more interesting, as there's a tradeoff to be paid: you can still hold ground, but will be attacked more easily.

If the defender doesn't want to fall back because there's a cliff, that' totally legitimate and the whole point of the PtA FB mechanics, but the defender will be in a really dire situation as not only the attacker will gain expertise, but will still be able to shove him down the cliff.

This is of course my interpretation and how I'd run my game given the current knowledge of the rules (which is still very partial).

 

[noodohs]

From my readings of PF2e, where rules are pretty exhaustively detailed, there are still plenty of ways to interpret (and misinterpret) the rules. I don't really think there is any foolproof, ironclad way to define any set of rules, unfortunately. That's not to say you shouldn't try, and I think what they have done here is clear enough for me (at least), just that expecting there to not be arguments about it is futile. And a lot of the clarity only really comes as you play the game and actually try to apply the rules, IMO.