As pointed out by someone else above, a full attack can be abandoned after the first attack, but before any subsequent attacks (the parts that explicitly change it from a standard action attack to a full round action) in order to take a move action. That's a lot closer to the charge example than either of the examples in the FAQ, or your summon monster one.
The fact that a specific rule had to be written out to allow a full attack/single attack to take place leaves an implied "this isn't the normal case for actions".
Personally I'd still allow the character to move if his charge was interrupted in this fashion - but that is not by RAW.
Here's how I see it:
Player A attempts to charge Player B, triggering AoO from Player C. Player A's intent was to move toward Player B and attack him. He gets fatigued in the process by Player C. There is no reason whatsoever why Player A should immediately be stopped. Player A doesn't get to play out the benefits of the charge (but he'll have the -2 AC, fine). He is still capable of moving. Whether he then gets a move or a move and attack or if he needs to carry those out somehow reflecting his initial intent is up to the GM.
Fatigue does not stop someone, it fatigues them. This is something that almost no one here seems to understand.
Yes, the specific action they intended on taking is now not allowed. So, y'know, don't allow it. It doesn't mean the turn is gone. Where does this "action is consumed" BS come from? Why should someone be losing their entire turn due to some odd mechanics stack-up?
If Player A stated he was just going to move, then attack Player B, triggering the same AoO from Player C, Player A's actions wouldn't be changed at all. But because he stated he was starting a charge, Player A is now stopped cold?!! Why does that make any sense?!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the forum for starting with the rules and determining what result they produce. There's a different forum for starting with a result that feels right and coming up with methods to produce it.
Tell you what: you don't come into the rules forum and yell at the people who are stating what the rules add up to, and I won't come into the houserules forum and yell at the people who are creating ways to shape their games how they want. Sound fair?
Anyway, as for this:
Where does this "action is consumed" BS come from? Why should someone be losing their entire turn due to some odd mechanics stack-up?
I already linked the official FAQ stating that if you're interrupted by something that limits your actions, you're done. It's upthread a little ways. If you'd rather a different result was produced in your games, change it for your games (and if you're pretty sure your solution is awesome, share it in the appropriate forum). Just stop being belligerent to people who are being more respectful of how Paizo organized their forums than you are.
Here:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
Find me the bit in the rules that says "if you take a full-round action and are prevented from completing it, you can still take a standard or move action (as long as you haven't already performed the equivalent of a standard or move action as part of the failed full-round action)." and I'll concede the point. The character who chose to move then attack (move+standard) is not putting in the same effort as someone charging (equivalent to move+move+standard).
Yes, a GM can house rule that you can turn it into a normal move and attack, but it is a house rule. By RAW and the FAQ, an interrupted full-round action that is not allowed as a consequence of an AOO stops. There is no indication that the action is not taken, since it clearly was, and if you take a full-round action, you cannot also take a standard or move action (barring certain special abilities which are clearly not in evidence here).
If Player A stated he was just going to move, then attack Player B, triggering the same AoO from Player C, Player A's actions wouldn't be changed at all. But because he stated he was starting a charge, Player A is now stopped cold?!! Why does that make any sense?!
It doesn't make sense but per the FAQ Jiggy posted that is what happens by RAW. No matter how much we like it or don't it doesn't change RAW. Those of us not playing in PFS don't have to follow RAW but that doesn't change what the RAW is.
Now that we know the RAW is stupid most of us will probably houserule it similar to the way you said you would do it but that is still houseruling and not RAW. Those playing PFS will probably have to live with the illogical consequences if this particular situation comes up.
|
"The result of the rules seems too punitive/powerful/whatever, therefore let's do something else" belongs here, not here.
Except maybe for the fact that MANY MANY times the Devs have used exactly the same reasoning to clarify what the rules were ;-)
Of course, this does not apply here as the FAQ you gave us provides the RAW answer (thanks for it BTW).
The FAQ example is distinct in the fact that the provoker moved through a square to trigger the AoO. The move started, and could be completed. Only problem is that no other action could be taken afterwards.
I am not sure of the specifics of the original post, as the poster explicitly left them out. But if the provoking character started next to the prone character then the charge never actually started.
The FAQ only states that the limit take effect NOW. I get that. It does not state, and I feel it does not imply, that all actions are now done.
I have always interpreted that the attacker has the ability to change his actions if he never took any.
Lets say that attacking someone provokes an AoO and hitting this same target causes damage to the attacker and the attacker is aware. If the AoO drops the attacker to 1 HP, I do not rule that the attacker MUST go through with the attack. He can change his action. He still suffered the AoO, but that damage makes him switch to a 5' step and cast Cure Light Wounds.
In the OP's scenario, I would rule that the charger has the following options:
1) Finish movement
2) Finish movement & attack (if any target is within range)
3) Abandon movement
4) Abandon movement & attack
5) Any myriad of other actions that do not exceed the normal actions in a round.
Limits would be based on actions before the AoO.