|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
Personally, I think that Zimmerman would incriminate himself in about three minutes if interviewed by the police but it's in the hands of the grand jury now.Well considering he was already in police custody and apparently didn't, I'd say that is not really likely (to happen in 3 minutes). He didn't incriminate himself in the eyes of cops who just couldn't give two s$@$s about some hooded thug being shot. Two things you have to know about cops:
Did you know that Obama is a servant of the Rockefellers, who are actually disguised reptilian aliens from the Draco constellation, and who are suppressing magic energy sources revealed to us by other ("good") aliens in crop circles (and subsequently re-discovered by Tesla), in a bid to cement their plan for world domination? I learned all about that in a movie called Thrive. It makes as much sense as the Fox News "Liberal Islamic Communist One-World Conspiracy," but with a better soundtrack. DUDE DUDE DUDE! Go on Youtube and search Ventura Conspiracy.Jesse Ventura has a show on TruTV where he "exposes" conspiraciees. It is a f~#*ing RIOT!
I can't remember who said it exactly, and I'm too lazy to check. Someone said something about not calling homosexuality immoral would go a long way towards not dehumanizing gay people. Or some such. Doesn't the catholic church hold that ALL men are born sinners, and that sin is inherent in our being? Doesn't that just dehumanize us all?
The disconnect for me, james, is the idea that multiple provocations /= multiple opportunities. I think this is some weird mental gymnastics. The system is much cleaner and simpler if when you provoke an attack of opportunity...you provoke an attack of opportunity. The language about movement seems to indicate that it is a special situation rather than a general trend, otherwise why not just say "multiple acts that would provoke from a single action instead only provoke once"? Certainly that would be infinitely cleaner language.
The amount of time it takes to sit down with people as well versed in the rules as Jason the Man-Bull and hammer out 5 or 6 genuinely aggravating rules questions should be negligible compared to the effort and resources needed to write that new book. I think they could manage both. The way I do it is as I described, and if there is no ruling (or if the ruling is just crap) then I'll enact a house rule with much ado so everyone knows that ZOMG THE RULES ARE CHANGING TECTONIC SHIFT!
FWIW my perspect is that...it's unclear! My brain tells me that each instance should provoke individually. That makes the most sense to me and jibes with the rest of the rules about AoO the best. But then something like Scorching Ray would provoke, like, 4 AoOs which seems overmuch. That's the one corner case that makes me wonder, not if the rules as I've understood them are wrong, but if Scorching Ray needs to be a special case. Or that the rules in general need to be clarified. I'm about 99% certain that a single action can provoke more than once. But there are obviously corner cases where this seems punitive, one of which being Scorching Ray and another being Vicious Stomp.
It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed. Something is important based on how many other rules or game dynamics it explicitly affects, not popularity. Seems fair, no? My game rarely grinds to a halt for anything, I'll have you know, but that doesn't mean rules questions don't come up. I make it pretty clear that my rulings are a temporary band-aid to keep the game moving smoothly and that I'll look it up later. If there's nothing to look up, if it's a genuine rules conundrum that has never seen official response? Well I guess in that scenario I'd rather Paizo be the bad guy than me :P
That's quite different from what the suggestion was though. It wouldn't be an all-out fracas but rather a one on one two person legitimate debate. No peanut gallery, locked thread with a poll on the top.
? Same principle really. Long line of level 1 commoners, or even a zig-zaggy line, and one +5 Holy Flaming Burst Keen (or whatever) longbow. Peasant 1 makes an attack with the weapon, then drops it as a free action. Peasant 2 picks it up with a move, fires it with a standard, drops it again. Rise, repeat ad nauseum. Not the best attack bonus, but with a +5 Holy wtf ever weapon there's bound to be some nat 20s in there. Next round starts with the last shooter and zigzags back.
@Mothman: again, I don't think the direness or popularity of a rules conundrum necessarily makes it a better candidate to be officially answered. It's a game, it has rules and they have to be internally consistent and functional. If something is pointed out as being nonfunctional, even if it's one guy pointing it out, it should be addressed. It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed.
I actually rather like this idea. The devs pick a noted forum rules-junkie to represent both sides and have X amount of words/page space to make their case. Players read them, a poll is taken, and all of this information is taken into account for a final adjudication. The votes would be non-binding, I don't want the actual designers to think they're beholden to the whims of the unwashed masses or anything ;P
Paizo has long had a policy of silence on rules questions. They feel largely that they shouldn't step on DMs toes who want to rule one way or another. They sort of spin it as allowing DMs to be flexible. I understand this stance from them, they can both save time and money by being neutral in many rules disputes, but his frustrates a lot of us who want a clean, complete product. I like tight rules, both as DM and as a player. I think that we all want a company that is more responsive to players' concerns, and I think taking the stance of "well we don't really know HOW many players want X, Y, or Z, thus we shall ignore it" is immensely cynical. Even for me! There are rules questions that don't have a genuine answer. I think the vast majority of those rules deserve to have answers, irrespective of how many people are clamoring for those answers. That's the entirety of my position.
*sigh* Have we swung back around to the "full attack only provokes once" side of the pendulum again? This is getting exhausting. Well, right now we have someone saying that an attack of opportunity is an action, except when it's not, and that only actions can provoke attacks of opportunity, and even then only once (except for the exceptions that say it provokes multiple times), and that provoking an AoO isn't the same thing as an opportunity, thus an action can provoke multiple times but only be one "opportunity" which is something undefined by the rules. So it's much much more complex than how you state it :P
*sigh* So what is the exact right percentage of the PF playing demographic that needs to be concerned about it before it is worthy of being remarked upon?The majority of PF players don't visit the boards, and even most that do aren't particularly active. You seem to be making this argument now that "well, since we can never really know how many people care, we should assume very few do" which I think is fallacious logic and deleterious to the community as a whole.
As we've all been trying to say, attacks of opportunity aren't an action AT ALL! You have this weird idea in your mind that everything someone does is an action. They were tripped? They must have taken the "drop to the floor" free action out of turn. You're jumping through all these hoops and rewriting every other combat-related rule to avoid the very concept that something doesn't need to be an Action to provoke an attack of opportunity.
That doesn't mean that no questions are important. I feel it would behoove Paizo to have a more regular column to answer FAQ, much like Sage Advice in the olden days.If a whole community is in an uproar about something, methinks that it is important to them, even if the developers/designers feel it to be trivial.
If an attack of opportunity is an action, then what kind is it?
If an AoO is a standard action, you can't take it when it's not your turn. Likewise if it is a swift, full, or move action. That leaves Immediate, which would consume your Swift action on your next turn. Is this what you are suggesting Mabven? To turn your argument against you, making a ranged touch attack is an Action, even if it is part of another Action (casting a spell) and thus provokes twice.
I have not ignored them, I have decided to believe him despite that, and taken his statement as a statement of humility. I am simply taking the word of someone who is much closer to the rules development process than any of us are. It is you who dismiss him out of hand. I do not think he would have answered the way he did if he did not think he had a good handle on the intent of this specific rule (and he does state unequivocally that the rules never intended to allow more than one aoo per action)You've ignored all the posts by James Jacobs saying, essentially, "but hey, don't listen to me, I'm not a rules guy". You keep calling him editor in chief, which he is not, and you defer to HIS advice as if it were the word of god, while ignoring the entirety of the CRB, everyone else's arguments, and Jason's post. Are you new here? James has made these sorts of rulings, time and time again, that turn out to be wrong. It's his track record that makes him an unreliable authority, regardless of his position at Paizo.If James came on and said "we've decided that the Monk is overpowered and will no longer be allowed in PFS play. APRIL FOOLS!" would you believe statement 1 despite statement 2? His statements are not out of humility. They're out of the fact that he IS NOT A RULES GUY! He's a creative director and developer for the golarion world. He's a lot of things, a very talented and creative individual, but he's not any sort of authority on rules. If you don't believe me, LISTEN TO HIM!
Well, Hangar, if only actions can provoke AoOs, then being tripped cannot provoke. It's not falling to the ground that provokes, it's the attacker's successful trip attempt. Since the AoO CAN BE provoked by another AoO (trip attempt for example) surely you must concur that not ONLY actions can provoke attacks of opportunity. Right?
You've ignored all the posts by James Jacobs saying, essentially, "but hey, don't listen to me, I'm not a rules guy". You keep calling him editor in chief, which he is not, and you defer to HIS advice as if it were the word of god, while ignoring the entirety of the CRB, everyone else's arguments, and Jason's post.
So, Mabven, if I charge a large creature with intent to trip (or whatever) when do I provoke? At the beginning of my movement through a threatened hex? If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action. ?????
Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW. Yes, every time you do something on that list that provokes an attack of opportunity...it provokes an attack of opportunity. Nowhere does it say you provoke an attack of opportunity more than once in the life of your entire character. Therefore it must be true that, since I provoked against an ogre at level 1, I am IMMUNE TO EVER PROVOKING NOW AND FOREVER./eyeroll
Except its the same thing! Casting a spell provokes, and so does making a ranged touch attack. Two things which provoke, with the same action.Moving through a threatened space provokes, so does making an unarmed strike without IUS, thus two provocations from the same action. Please PLEASE explain why you think this is different. Why is spellcasting a special case when, clearly, BOTH casting a spell AND making a ranged touch attack are BOTH actions which provoke AoOs. EDIT: I think I see where you're coming from. However: the language EVEN IF does not preclude that they both provoke.
I'm playing devil's advocate. People have said that an action can only provoke once. I don't believe this is so and my question was to show how absurd that would become. If I charge a large creature who has Combat Reflexes, then attack at the end of my charge with an unarmed strike (when I don't have IUS) I provoke twice. Once for the movement, movement out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Second for the unarmed strike. If the creature has Combat Reflexes he can take two (2) attacks of opportunity, once for movement which provoked, once for the attack which provoked. Right? IF you can only provoke once per action (a silly notion) then he would only provoke once for his charge. But...what would provoke it? It would matter because if the player decides that his unarmed strike will provoke, then the movement will not. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? It must be the case that a single action can provoke multiple times, provided the acts contained WITHIN that action (moving, tripping, unarmed striking, bull rushing, etc.) each provoke separately.
Assume they're NPC classed characters. Mostly experts. Have them craft weapons for your army TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. Sell their goods for profit. Train all your followers in Perform: Dance and send them out into the world to perform for coin and return to you with all their hard-earned money. Be creative!
Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue. No, no, you make a fair point. RAW I can't see where it says that every single ranged attack provokes, at least not in the section of the rules dedicated to explaining how AoOs work. I think Tarantula is referring to Point-Blank Master, from the APG. I'm unsure whether the language there should trump the ambiguous verbiage in the Combat section though. It's worth a FAQ we should be able to agree! But either way I think it's safe to say you can totally provoke from multiple acts within an action. There are just too many examples of rules loopholes created or ambiguity if this were not so. Again though, please address my charge/unarmed conundrum. An unarmed attack provokes, as you say, but if a SINGLE ACTION can only provoke once, which act as part of that full-round charge action is what provokes? The movement, or the charge? I contend that both do. If only one or the other does, how do we adjudicate which one? Who decides? The GM or the player? Do different monsters get to say which one provokes? Is a vote held? What if the monsters agree that the movement should provoke, but then the second monster trips the charger preventing him from moving through the first monster's space, robbing him from his clobbering? Like seriously WTF. It just makes no sense this way.
I see, you do think you know the rules better than James does. I disagree.Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does?I'll let James Jacobs answer that question. I'm fairly confidant that I know the rules better than James Jacobs. I'm also fairly certain I don't know the rules NEARLY as well as SKR or Jason or some of the other chief designers.James Jacobs' job is not to know the rules, and he has maintained that his rules responses are not official, so why the f$*! would I assume they are AGAINST HIS OWN WORDS?
I give you the gospel, straight from the horse's mouth, and you say "Wrong horse." Wow. Just Wow. Uh...yeah. Because THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE! You can't just ask anyone and then DECLARE that it's the gospel.I mean, I asked Gary Gygax himself, and apparently rocks fall and we die! Always and forever. Why can't you accept that as the gospel truth?
LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong. Well I got out my Ouija board and asked Gary Gygax himself. He says that rocks fall and we all die. Crap! JJ is not an authoritative source. He bats like 0 on these sorts of rules questions. As cheapy says, he has HIMSELF said he's not an authoritative source. What he offers is just off the cuff GMing advice, not anything approaching an official ruling.
James Jacobs is NOT an authoritative source. He's a creative director and has absolutely no control or expertise in the rules. Similarly Liz Courts would not be an authoritative source, nor would anyone merely because of a Paizo nametag. His response demonstrates a basic lack of understanding about AoO rules. Movement is already specifically called out in the rules as not provoking multiple times in a round to prevent the scenario he envisions as being a next logical step in allowing multiple AoO provocations. This ruling would make CAGM, the barbarian rage power, nearly useless against a full attacking opponent. He gets 6 attacks, you only get 1 swing back? Certainly contrary to the way it reads... JJ does great work in his field of expertise, don't get me wrong, everyone at Paizo is talented. Jason or Sean would be the authority in this area though.
That's a good question. Regardless that's certainly how I would (and have) ruled it as well. I'm just testing the granularity of it all. If something happens as part of the AoO, or another readied action, it seems like you ought to be able to abort the action at LEAST if not re-target in extenuating circumstances. But this is a side argument that is detracting from the topic. It seems we agree that multiple X should provoke multiple AoSs.
Except...there isn't a Declare Action step, a Declare Target step, a Resolve Action step, etc. It's all at once. So what you're saying is that if an action I perform provokes an attack of opportunity, even though the AoO happens BEFORE MY ACTION HAPPENS, I am forced to continue with it. That seems to make no sense to me. But making sense in some sort of simulationist way doesn't have a bearing on the rules. So, okay. Let's turn this around. Readying an action also interrupts, correct?For some reason I'm invisible and watching combat happen. I'm readying an action to shout if things get out of hand. My friend begins his turn and tries to coup de grace an unconscious ally. I shout "NO DON'T, WE WANT TO QUESTION HER". But it doesn't matter because he is not allowed to change his mind about an action he committed to, even if new information comes to light before he actually does the dirty deed.
... Nope. If something provokes, it provokes. Period. Making a ranged attack provokes. If you do it once it provokes once, if you do it 11 times it provokes 11 freaking times. This is the same sort of backwards logic that lead people to say you can only sneak attack once per round. "But the rules don't say you can do it multiple times a round..." No, the rules say "IF X THEN Y" IF you make a ranged attack THEN you provoke an AoO. There's no need to say "this is specifically allowed to happen multiple times per round" because there is also no language keeping it from happening more than once per round. Full attacking with a bow, charging with an unarmed strike without IUS (the movement provokes and the attack provokes, but it's a full-round action), charging with a bull rush, charging with a trip. All these things MUST provoke multiple times because, although "full round actions" they include multiple ACTS which provoke. If you can only provoke from one action, which act WITHIN that action provokes. Let's say I charge a large creature and attack with an unarmed strike without IUS. A singularly stupid thing to do, I know. Since it CAN ONLY EVER PROVOKE ONCE, being a single action, I declare that it's attack that provokes. That way, when I move out of another enemy's threatened space to charge, he can't make an AoO on me. Wait I don't get to choose. Who gets to choose? What if that monster has Combat Reflexes? What if they both do? Another implication of your interpretation is that only things which are ACTIONS provoke attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are not an action, thus they never provoke. Someone moves through my threatened space and I try to trip them. Normally that would provoke its own attack of opportunity, but I get free and clear because AoOs aren't actions? Methinks not, if you do something that provokes...*gasp* it provokes!
Except...there isn't a Declare Action step, a Declare Target step, a Resolve Action step, etc. It's all at once. So what you're saying is that if an action I perform provokes an attack of opportunity, even though the AoO happens BEFORE MY ACTION HAPPENS, I am forced to continue with it. That seems to make no sense to me. But making sense in some sort of simulationist way doesn't have a bearing on the rules.
You'll have to quote rules that say what you're suggesting. The rules for PF don't have that level of granularity. This isn't M:TG where there is a stack. Attacks of Opportunity and readied actions are this really weird no-man's land where the world is all topsy-turvy.I know what I think would happen, but as certain as I feel about it I have to admit there is a high enough level of ambiguity to necessitate a FAQ answer.
OK, let me be clear. I wasn't saying that RD was defending animal abuse in the real world. I was saying he was defending animal abuse in game. Which he WASN'T he was defending using SUMMONED CREATURES, i.e. a magical effect, as a utility to prevent harm to players in game. Summoned creatures, like say a celestial eagle, come from a different plan of existence and GO BACK THERE WHEN THEY DIE or the spell duration ends. As far as that summoned creature is concerned, sending it into a pit to die is just as bad as throwing it at the sharpened stick held by an enemy. When you summon it you have exerted your mental control over it, ENSLAVED IT if you will, and any behavior you force it to perform is against its will and an EVIL act. You are trying to enact some sort of moral grey area on a game which does not have any. It's a failure of the system, I agree, but what you propose is really an arbitrary house rule to punish players for playing smart. So, really, you have two choices: 1)All summon spells are EVIL descriptor, since it removes the free will of the creature summoned and, in all likelihood, leads to its painful albeit brief death. 2)Throwing a summoned horse down a spiked pit repeatedly is A-OK because it was a magic horse and you wouldn't do that to a REAL horse, like, ever. (Not even a real-to-the-game horse).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
