Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

AoO and the threatening weapon


Rules Questions

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yeah, I simply don't see why comparing apples to oranges with the talk about using an AoO to attack someone who did not provoke is relevant.

You can't do it, and it is not what is being discussed.

Nor can you attack with something that you're not threatening.

You are trying to read into the rules an allowance, then you might as well read more into it while you're there.

They provoked in a square that you threaten because you hold a dagger, then obviously you should be able to kick them because of that dagger! Really? No, sorry.

-James


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It would seem that you want a rules to disallow the action, and by comparing it to something unrelated, some how proves your point.

I can't climb the tree, because I can't jump to the moon.


blackbloodtroll wrote:


I can't climb the tree, because I can't jump to the moon.

If the section you were trying to base your claim that you could climb the tree would also say you can jump to the moon with the same level of reading.. then you're reading it badly on both counts.

Sorry. Both readings are about equal there, which makes them very much related and both very much not allowed.

-James

Sczarni

Quote:
Someone can provoke an AOO during your turn

Yes, there are instances when this can happen, and if we want to get into every tiny detail and facet of what may happen we'll be here forever.

When this does happen, however, it's considered an interruption of initiative. Whether or not their initiative order changes depends on the situation (Immediate action or readied action?) but for the duration of their action it is considered their turn. So there is still no quick draw allowed.

Black, basically all anyone can do is offer you this: When someone provokes an AoO you are allowed an attack (combat maneuvers included since they require a melee touch attack if you have Improved Unarmed Strike). You can't move, you can't cast, you can't do a dance, twirl a pen, or ponder the meaning of life. You're offered a free attack, just one, and that's it. That is as the rules are written.

If you're not happy with that, well, that's why we all invented house rules! As a DM I certainly don't stick with the written word all the time. Hell I allow keen and the improved crit feat to stack. If you're the DM and you feel the quick draw feat should be allowed then by all means! Go for it. If you aren't the DM, try to convince him of it. He may be more receptive. All we're doing is referencing the rule book.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not suggesting that you can add additional actions into a AoO.

I am only suggesting that you if you threaten an opponent, and he provokes an AoO, you can make the AoO with another weapon that you are not threatening with, like a whip.

The "you're doody head trying to break the game" comments are not needed.
Please discontinue posting such comments.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, so say that you have a whip (without the Improved Whip feat) and a dagger. You only threaten the 8 squares around you since you don't threaten with the whip. If someone provokes an AoO from you they are provoking from your dagger not your whip so you can't take the AoO with your whip.

It's the same if you have a sword in one hand and your other hand is empty. If you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike you don't threaten with your empty hand so you could only take an AoO with your sword.

That's just how it is. If you want to run it differently in a home game that's within your right but that's not what the rules intend.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I keep hearing that, but without RAW support.

The only thing I hear is "common sense", but I do not see it as such.

It would seem "common sense" is more like "I agree with it" in this case.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes it's common sense, but it's also implied in the rules.

Answer this simple question questions:

If you do NOT threaten an area, can you take an AoO?

From everything I've read in the rules the answer I come up with is "no". So if you can't make an AoO if you do not threaten an area, then you cannot take an AoO with a weapon you do not threaten with. It's using "common sense" to take the RAW to a logical conclusion.

Here's another situation: Say a monster has a natural bite attack and is wielding a reach weapon. You provoke an AoO from the reach weapon as you move through its threatened area. The monster cannot take the AoO with it's bite attack because at the time you provoked the AoO the bite isn't what was threatening you, it was the reach weapon so that's what the monster has to take the attack with.

It's the same thing if you have two weapons of equal reach but only one of them threatens an area. You take the AoO with the weapon that caused the area to be threatened.

As you know if you've played this game for any amount of time. The RAW don't cover everything that comes up in the game so it requires more than a little common sense and logic to read the rules and come up with the answers for the rules that aren't explicitly covered in the RAW.

If there's some part of the RAW that say that you can make an AoO if you don't threaten an area then that opens up a whole new line of thought that would definitely support your point of view but I'd need you to point out where it says that. Of if you could just point out the specific rule that you're reading that makes you think that you CAN take an AoO with a weapon or UAS that doesn't threaten an area I'd appreciate that too.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not sure why the reach weapons comments are coming into play.

I am not suggesting that you can attack with a weapon into a square you would otherwise be unable to attack into anyways.

I also don't see it as a "hitting better" thing, and am unsure why that comment is being used.

Sczarni

Quote:

I am not suggesting that you can add additional actions into a AoO.

I am only suggesting that you if you threaten an opponent, and he provokes an AoO, you can make the AoO with another weapon that you are not threatening with, like a whip.

The "you're doody head trying to break the game" comments are not needed.
Please discontinue posting such comments.

My point in "you only get an attack, that's it, nothing more" is that you are allowed an attack with a weapon in hand, nothing more. Nothing more meaning you don't get any other actions, like drawing a sheathed dagger.

As for taking an attack of opportunity with a weapon you are not threatening with, it was clearly stated in the rules compendium of 3.5 that you cannot do that. As I've found nothing in Pathfinder to contradict this ruling, as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

As for the "doody head" comments, I've said nothing of the sort. If you're reading that much hostility into these posts then may I suggest you take a step back from the topic and make your own ruling on the subject, as I suggested.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I keep hearing that, but without RAW support.

The only thing I hear is "common sense", but I do not see it as such.

It would seem "common sense" is more like "I agree with it" in this case.

You think that it is common sense that by threatening with a dagger one can kick, but without that dagger one cannot kick? Really? So having a dagger in hand empowers your kicks to be able to do what they otherwise could not?

Look, I get that you want this to be the case, but it does go against common sense.

The same 'lack of RAW' can have you trying to attack a target other than the person provoking the AOO.

You don't want to admit that this is similar, but it is. You are wanting to ignore the implied means, while this is ignoring the implied target. Both go against the description of what is occurring, but neither are contradicted in regards to the 'making an AOO' section of the RAW.

It doesn't mean that either are valid,

-James


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
The same 'lack of RAW' can have you trying to attack a target other than the person provoking the AOO.

I've already refuted the notion that you can attack someone other than the opponent who provokes, but I'll repeat it here:

Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work. (Core Rulebook p. 180, emphasis added)

I'll say that the rules-as-intended may very well be that you take the AoO with the weapon you threaten with, but the rules-as-written don't say that. The rules-as-written however do say that your free attack is against the opponent that provokes, so stop hiding behind that straw man.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thanks Tim.


Let me ask this bbt

"What is the endgame if asking this?"

We all know your not actually wanting to attack with a weapon that provokes an attack of opportunity so what are you wanting to use for your attack.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am simply seeing if I can use weapons that do not threaten, on AoOs, by threatening with another. Example: Whip.


Which also would provoke. Thus my question what is the endgame of this thread.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Let's say I have Kobold tail attachment, Long lash, and a whip.

I threaten with one, but not the other.

Someone provokes an AoO at 10ft. away, where I threaten with the Tail attachment.

Can I attack with my whip, or must it be the tail attachment?


Well as its been said its kind of ambiguous.

However now the question becomes why would you even want to? You choosing to deal less damage of a no lethal variety which would be useless against some targets. Are you trying to get a trip attempt with a bonus on it or maybe a disarm.

Reasonably this will likely never come up in the examples you give since very few weapons don't threaten and most of those provoke for use, and are inferior to whatever happens to be threatening. Let's be honest short of some obscure combo or feat that would make using a whip or unarmed strike that your not specializing in its a pointless endeavor.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Without knowing the conclusion, it is impossible to know if the quest to come to it was a pointless endeavor.


Yes it can be realized its pointless. If you think it's not give one example where being able to attack with the non threatening weapon would even be functionally as useful as just attacking with the one you threaten with.

If you can't find one this yes it's a pointless endeavor because there is an insignificant chance of it ever happening in game.


Talonhawke wrote:

Yes it can be realized its pointless. If you think it's not give one example where being able to attack with the non threatening weapon would even be functionally as useful as just attacking with the one you threaten with.

If you can't find one this yes it's a pointless endeavor because there is an insignificant chance of it ever happening in game.

You have a dueling whip which means trips and other combat maneuvers are significantly more likely with the whip. But you have yet to take the feats to let you threaten with the whip.

The question itself doesn't pass the smell test, however. Having a dagger should not make you suddenly able to kick when you otherwise wouldn't. It seems, on its face, as absurd as other people trying to require a hand free in order to kick.

-James


Actually it's only a +2 to disarms and the ability to drop it if you mess up your trip. Other than that your threatening weapon may be just as good or better at diving due to feats and enhancement bonuses.

Like I said either there's an endgame that's being hidden or it's really just something tickling bbt brain that won't really matter on the answer but might end up getting FAQ'd before something much more relevant and likely to happen in game.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is not always a hidden agenda.


Talonhawke wrote:

Actually it's only a +2 to disarms and the ability to drop it if you mess up your trip. Other than that your threatening weapon may be just as good or better at diving due to feats and enhancement bonuses.

Well I built a magus that would have a +5 dueling whip that would beg to differ with you. That's a +10 luck bonus there before you factor in the +5 weapon.. of course he'll have the feats to threaten with the whip, but there you go.

Peace,

James


I would use common sense.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Axl wrote:

I would use common sense.

Surprisingly, this is not always easily defined within the realm of RAW.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Axl wrote:

I would use common sense.

Surprisingly, this is not always easily defined within the realm of RAW.

That's why it's called common sense. :P


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It is entirely possible for two parties to have a opposing views, and each declaring their view as "common sense".

It is also possible that they are both right.

Sczarni

That's 100% correct, but my point remains. Something that is not in black in white within the realm of RAW is going to require some common sense and a judgement call.

I think it's fairly clear there are two definite camps regarding this issue, one in favor one against, and I also think it's fairly clear you're not going to get the definitive "Yes or no and here's why according to rules_reference_42".

What you require sir is a judgement call on the part of your DM or, if you're the DM, your part.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let's say I have Kobold tail attachment, Long lash, and a whip.

I threaten with one, but not the other.

Someone provokes an AoO at 10ft. away, where I threaten with the Tail attachment.

Can I attack with my whip, or must it be the tail attachment?

Did you last attack with the tail attachment or the whip? At some tables, you take your AoO with the weapon you last used on your previous turn.

It makes the most sense, combat rounds being 6 seconds long. I'd agree that there is no way to opt for the better attack in a combat situation. I see Attacks of Opportunity as a snap reaction; thus weapon-in-hand.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
B.A. Ironskull wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let's say I have Kobold tail attachment, Long lash, and a whip.

I threaten with one, but not the other.

Someone provokes an AoO at 10ft. away, where I threaten with the Tail attachment.

Can I attack with my whip, or must it be the tail attachment?

Did you last attack with the tail attachment or the whip? At some tables, you take your AoO with the weapon you last used on your previous turn.

It makes the most sense, combat rounds being 6 seconds long. I'd agree that there is no way to opt for the better attack in a combat situation. I see Attacks of Opportunity as a snap reaction; thus weapon-in-hand.

In regards to attacking with ranged weapons, this houserule makes no sense.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

Is the tail attachment a ranged weapon?

If you are implying that when I used the phrase "last weapon used", it could be ranged and that's the weapon-in-question, hey you got me! Bully for you. You are a forum champ.

I had your original question in mind, a whip or a gauntlet. If you used your gauntlet last, sure; it seems that there are questions as to the whip's threatening an AoO, I'll admit I don't know off the hip. Seems no one does. It's a good question.


When the rules aren't clear there is only one correct answer: ASK YOUR GM. If you have multiple GMs (such as in PFS), then it's really best to assume the answer is "no, you cannot do that" because you will find GMs who rule that way.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
B.A. Ironskull wrote:

Is the tail attachment a ranged weapon?

If you are implying that when I used the phrase "last weapon used", it could be ranged and that's the weapon-in-question, hey you got me! Bully for you. You are a forum champ.

I had your original question in mind, a whip or a gauntlet. If you used your gauntlet last, sure; it seems that there are questions as to the whip's threatening an AoO, I'll admit I don't know off the hip. Seems no one does. It's a good question.

No need to be rude.

No, the Long Lash Tail Attachment is a reach weapon.

This "last weapon used" thing is a houserule.

It seems no does indeed know the answer.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

It seems to me that almost everybody, with one notable exception, agrees that the "common sense" interpretation is that you can't take an attack of opportunity with a weapon that would be unable to make the attack if it were the only weapon in your possession.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
JohnF wrote:


It seems to me that almost everybody, with one notable exception, agrees that the "common sense" interpretation is that you can't take an attack of opportunity with a weapon that would be unable to make the attack if it were the only weapon in your possession.

That's a very good way of putting it.

No RAW support, but a fine way of defining one's "common sense" view.


Hmm looking at the rules (and not being any kind of expert :D) The whip/dagger thing should actually work although attacking with the whip would provoke an AoO of it's own.

This does make me think about the polearm master fighter however if he provokes with improved unarmed strike or his spiked armor cah he use an immediate action and attack with his polearm.

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / AoO and the threatening weapon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.