BBT:
CRB p180, top right side of the page.
- Gauss
dpp84290:
Moving through a square has two elements: moving into, and moving out of. Only the moving out of part causes an AoO
- Gauss
|
Could you provide a link?No. Absolutely not.
"Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
Right here. Second to last sentence.
Austin Morgan:
I like D20PFSRD. It is a great resource. But it is not a rules source. It is a rules reference. To source a rule you need either the PRD or the book.
And before comments regarding it's accuracy are made: It is not completely accurate. Even with the admirable attempt for accuracy it is not always accurate. After all, it was over 2 years before anyone noticed that the D20PFSRD threatened spaces diagram used the 3.5 exception.
- Gauss
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Austin Morgan:
I like D20PFSRD. It is a great resource. But it is not a rules source. It is a rules reference. To source a rule you need either the PRD or the book.
And before comments regarding it's accuracy are made: It is not completely accurate. Even with the admirable attempt for accuracy it is not always accurate. After all, it was over 2 years before anyone noticed that the D20PFSRD threatened spaces diagram used the 3.5 exception.
- Gauss
As it should. I like Jason and I like the PF rules, but that idea that a reach weapon cant threaten diagonally is so boneheaded and absurd it deserves more frothing at the mouth than any of the monk complaints do.
As it should. I like Jason and I like the PF rules, but that idea that a reach weapon cant threaten diagonally is so boneheaded and absurd it deserves more frothing at the mouth than any of the monk complaints do.Austin Morgan:
I like D20PFSRD. It is a great resource. But it is not a rules source. It is a rules reference. To source a rule you need either the PRD or the book.
And before comments regarding it's accuracy are made: It is not completely accurate. Even with the admirable attempt for accuracy it is not always accurate. After all, it was over 2 years before anyone noticed that the D20PFSRD threatened spaces diagram used the 3.5 exception.
- Gauss
SKR's recent clarification didn't do a whole lot on that front, either. Apparently you threaten for the AoO while your opponent approaches from the diagonal, but you don't threaten 2 squares out normally. It's a clarification that assumes a tape measure and/or a piece of string while disregarding the squares.
Don't get me wrong, I want squares to go away in favor of hexes (this would NEVER be a problem in hexes), but I have issues with this sort of ruling.
You say "phantom square," I say we may as well have the tape measure out.
Honestly, I would have been ok with squircles. If you're basing the game on squares, then squircles make sense when it comes to reach. I think the real humdinger of it is that you can move to 2 diagonals out and standard action, then 5' through this phantom square and never be threatened if the target didn't move for some reason (and there are plenty of reasons for this to be the case, such as drawing + bracing, drawing + standard action, or even full attacking a threatened target).
Your final comment was pretty insulting and, I think, completely baseless. I have no problem visualizing the phantom squares. I just think it was a mediocre solution to a core problem of gridded combat via squares that Pathfinder obtained through legacy. I honestly prefer the legacy solution given the core problem.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I second that the previous post was extremely condescending.
As it happens, there ISN'T any other feature of the game where 'phantom squares' exist off-the-grid,
this feature only exists per the commentary of a developer which isn't official rules,
so all in all I don't see why any player of Pathfinder SHOULD need to understand this concept that ISN'T an actual part of the game.
re: SKR's 'clarification', with the idea of a phantom square that you are tripped in, it IS different than if the tripper merely threatened the original square (e.g. square threat area), because potentially the tripped character could still continue their movement (from the phantom square, i.e. 5' closer), which is the case for characters with the Rogue Crawl ability.
But I agree that SKR's approach is just way to wonky and in need of explanation, and square areas just work better. Probably the best compromise is to just say that threat areas will ROUND UP, which means only 1 square at most will be added... So Colossal creatures' threat area will still look mostly round-ish rather than a big square block.
But really, unless you are using a computer 'tabletop simulator' or have wire frame threat area indicators, non-square threat areas are just a pain in the ass for real table-top play. Same goes for fireballs, really. If anything, the game should just scale down their radius' to account for their increased area at 'the corners'.