Action expenditures and Attacks of Opportunity / Readied Actions


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Komoda wrote:

I get what you're saying Malachi, I just disagree. I don't think I am making up rules. I think I am using all the information provided, including reverse engineering the Paizo trip lock FAQ, the original 3.5 FAQ and the 3.5 Rules of the Game from the Sage himself, Skip Williams, to come to my interpretation. I have found absolutely no evidence from Paizo or anyone on these two forums that counters the 3.5 rules. The Pathfinder rules in the CRB are word-for-word, coma-for-coma, exactly the same as the 3.5 PHB.

I assure you, I do not believe I am "making up rules" or "playing a different game".

I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.

I played 3rd ed since it began, and still do with my regular group. I own, and use, the Rules Compendium.

Nothing in that, the PHB or the FAQ/Sage Advice column supports your position here. Saying that 'if the rule wording hasn't changed then the rule hasn't changed' is an argument I frequently use myself, but it doesn't help you here because you could no more do something in combat without using an Action In Combat that allows what you want to do, than you can in PF.

In both games, the only way you get to do anything in combat is by taking an Action In Combat that allows what you want to do. No Action In Combat, no attacking/moving/casting/anything else!

Neither game allows you to do stuff without first defining what Action In Combat you are taking (though this is sometimes obvious). For example, the player moves his mini from his starting square (which is threatened). The first thing the DM does is say, 'Whoa! What are you doing? What Action? Is it a 5-foot step? A Withdraw? A move? Charge? What? I need to know because that Action defines whether or not the threatening creature gets an AoO!'

What you suggest, moving first and choosing Action later, is not only not an allowed option in the rules, it would lead to absurd situations:-

Player: I move from my starting square to this square...
DM: Whoa! What Action are you taking?
Player: I haven't decided yet.
DM: Really? Okay, the Orc will take an AoO since you're leaving a square he threatens.
Player: Okay.
DM: He trips you, you're prone.
Player: Okay, I've decided that the move from that square was actually a 5-foot step.
DM: You mean...to avoid the AoO?
Player: No, you can keep that....
DM: Gee, thanks!
Player:...but I'll take a full attack.
DM:...so...you took a 5-foot step which did provoke? What game are you playing? The rest of us are playing Pathfinder!


Komoda wrote:
I would think that the "just as if you had cast it" part would be the part that says you lose the standard action that you would have lost if "you had cast it."

... and I think it's trying to be clear about the difference between losing "that casting" of the spell and actually losing the spell so you can't cast it again. The point, for me, is that the rule isn't clearly stating in plain language "you lose your standard action", but that is what we understand to have happened.

Move actions seem messier because there's some precedent for changing them for changing circumstances... The point of the Bob and Jane example is to look at what mechanics would have to be settled to deal with the iterations of reactions. It seems clear to me that Bob shouldn't get to change his action to an overrun of Jane. But can he change his path once her action is complete? I don't see why not. But in the case where she acts before he moves at all, I can't see letting him change his action from move to a move equivalent (i.e., crap, she blocked me, I draw my shield instead!)

For instance, Bob wants to hit Diana, 30' away, so he starts moving in. He gets stopped by an invisible wall after moving 10'. Does he still have 20' of "reactive movement" to go along the wall? He certainly doesn't get a new move action, so in the case where he "doesn't leave his square" because the wall is only 5' away, he can't take a different move action...

If you can stop a full attack because someone is dead after one shot and take your move action instead, I don't see why you can't react enough in this situation to alter your path. But that's a special case of what we don't have for move actions, i.e., it's spelled out that we can change between those actions. I don't think that's ever spelled out for move actions, except in the rule we've already discussed, which is that interruptions allow you to keep doing the action you're currently doing *if you are able*.

(remember, this is a game where flying objects that are constantly in motion have their range to target "fixed" in place for a whole round in which they are actually moving.)

TL/DR: At some point, making it simpler - your move action is incomplete, but used - is cleaner and faster.

AND:

Rulishness o' Rulishness wrote:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

... and I'm corrected here. You know I've been playing my misreading of "an enemy's space" for "a space threatened by the enemy" for awhile now. Bad me!


Ok, this thread's reached that critical point where the posts are getting longer and longer, positions are being restated, and more explanations just feed the fire for those looking to argue.

Komoda, at the end of the day you may just need to accept that the way we're explaining things is the way it works, even if it doesn't make perfect logical sense to you. This is the de facto way the rules are run by the vast majority of judges with high system mastery (even if there's slight table variation on crawling, climbing, and charging). It's not like this is some obscure, unknown, or infrequently used rule.

Btw, repeatedly quoting my "As soon as you declare" line out of context is extremely disingenuous, especially since it was such a short post.

Finally, I'd like to note that tripping and AoOs worked exactly the same way in 3.5, although that's a discussion for another thread (and another forum).


Do these posts at least give some validity to my position?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Wow, folks,

I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.

Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Clearly a trip provoked by a person that has already actually moved squares, not attempted to, would interrupt (cost) the move action, but doesn't this clearly state that it would not cost that action if it was the first square the person was standing in?

I mean it specifically calls out tripping and moving.

It also calls out the relationship to 3.5, giving validity to my use of the Rules of the Game and the 3.5 FAQ.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l0rq&page=8?TripLocking-Doesnt-Work-Offici al-Ruling-or-Not#354
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l0rq&page=6?TripLocking-Doesnt-Work-Offici al-Ruling-or-Not#293


Komoda,

I don't really see how those posts give your position validity.

Jason stated that "technically" the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place. That would lend itself to our position, not yours.

Jason then goes on to say how it is pushed to before to keep things straightforward. Well, that does have specific rules support. Ie: when the rules discuss resolving the AoO before resolving the action that caused it.
But the order of resolving AoOs and actions is not the same as not having taken the action(s) to begin with.

The bolded line in the second quote is discussing that the action is not automatically interrupted unless a specific rule states it is.
Again, that does not conflict with our position. We are not stating that 'by rule' your action is voided.
In fact, I keep stating that you can continue your action if you have a way to do so. One such way would be to stand up as a swift action after you were tripped.

In short, there is a significant difference between an AoO automatically (by rule) interrupting an action and an AoO causing a situation where the action is not able to be completed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you can't interrupt something that hasn't happened yet.


Bandw2, yup!

Since you cannot interrupt an action with an AoO if it has not happened yet it MUST be happening. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:


I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.

If this is the case, then what provoked the AoO? What did the prone target do to provoke the AoO? Apparently nothing since it was before he tried to stand up. Does this really make sense to you?

The mainstream interpretation (and I'm going to boldly say, the correct one) is that the prone target starts to move in a way that provokes the AoO. Now we get into a situation in which they must be resolved in a particular order. That doesn't mean they fully occur in that order - since the triggering move action starts before the AoO (otherwise no AoO could be provoked) and finishes after - just that they are resolved in that order. And if the AoO's result makes the rest of the move invalid, bye bye move action. If it does not, the move action continues to its resolution.


Aparantly we are all playing Star Wars, since we are all Jedi to see an attack coming before it happens and AoO on it.

Silver Crusade

Kchaka wrote:
Aparantly we are all playing Star Wars, since we are all Jedi to see an attack coming before it happens and AoO on it.

No!

The AoO does not happen before the provoking action begins!

The AoO is resolved before the provoking action is resolved.

Understood this way (the correct way!), the lack of trip locking makes sense, and the fact that the provoker is already in the process of executing his action also makes sense.

Understood this way, all the 3.5 FAQs and all the PF FAQs make sense.


Malachi Silverclaw, I think Kchaka was making a joke. :)


A big issue here is that people aren't backing up what they're claiming with rules, and Komoda has been especially guilty of this. I didn't know this thread was still happening, and I feel very frustrated with the 3.5 blog being quoted still, and the trip lock not being understood correctly.

Here are some things

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack wrote:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

Here are some rules that clearly point out how you can decide to make your standard action into a full round one. I've seen posted a few times people struggle with this, so here it is.

--------

People who believe you can begin standing up, get hit, and then change what you want to do, such as not stand up, please support this by rules.

--------

Charge wrote:


Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

For those people who think you can start charging, and just stop charging whenever you want. This has already been pointed out. The rules say you choose the things, and then you do the things. Enjoy the ride!

---------

PATHFINDER FAQ wrote:

Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

ENOUGH WITH THE TRIP LOCK STUFF! The FAQ clearly writes it happens BEFORE the action triggered it is RESOLVED. It also clearly states that the target is still prone when the AOO happens. Best part, it says that the target then stands up, so anyone looking to state otherwise with my challenge previous in this post, good luck fighting that FAQ.

----------

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity wrote:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Action Types wrote:


An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

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.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move actions.

You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.

Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.

Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).

I just figure I give that some performance enhancements.

-------------

Lastly, stop saying that the action is wasted, or gone, or whatever. You are entitled to your action, and you have swift actions, immediate actions etc. that might actually matter, so if you can continue with your action, then do so, but if not, DEAL WITH IT! You can take swift actions anytime you can take a free action, and an immediate action can be spent at any time.

Swashbuckler Kip-Up (Ex) wrote:
At 3rd level, while the swashbuckler has at least 1 panache point, she can kip-up from prone as a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity. She can kip-up as a swift action instead by spending 1 panache point.

hey buddy, look at this. I guess if you have kip-up, you could swift action back on your feet and continue your interrupted move action. Gee Golly, aint that nice?


Why are you so upset that I disagree? Clearly I have been using rules to support my position all along. We just disagree on the interpretation. I even have shown where the lead designer mentions 3.5 and how it still works the same way. Even though we still disagree on the outcome of the 3.5 information, that should give validity to my use of it as a source.

I don't understand why debating on this forum so often breaks down to "no stupid, nothing you ever say matters." Maybe I am completely bonkers and have misapplied Paizo's meaning of the FAQ. But I have clearly tried to sway opinion (I think I rolled a 1) through applying logic and presenting support. I never just made stuff up or attempted to homebrew.


I'm very frustrated that you seem to be intentionally ignoring what is being posted, as others have pointed out to you explicitly. You clearly still don't understand the "trip-lock" situation, and many attempts have been made to explain it, but you just say "I disagree". You can't disagree, because it is spelled out with Pazio FAQ exactly how it works, but you insist the order happens differently, and use it as an argument to counter something somehow, which I don't understand. Please, read what has been written about the trip lock in the pazio FAQ that I even quoted above.

Also, you have constantly quoted the 3.5 web thing, while bolding a select section. I and others have pointed out to you where you're misunderstanding what is written, and apparently ignoring the rest of the post. You are cherry picking, then twisting it into something it isn't. What matters is that the 3.5 rules are irrelevant here, so they shouldn't be on the rules forum in the first place.

We have a FAQ on how tripping someone standing up works, and it is contradicting the designers post. What is the date on the designers post compared to the FAQ? You're aware that posts from dev's designers etc on the message boards aren't to be considered as official rulings, right?

Please, present an argument using the rules of pathfinder, so things can progress. Also, please don't portray me as "no stupid, nothing you ever say matters", because that is insulting and unfair. The rules forum needs to have relevant things in it so the rules can be discussed, and 3.5 isn't relevant here.


Human Fighter, coming to a different conclusion based on the same RAW is not based on my "intentionally ignoring" anything. As an example, the interpretation of the most powerful RAW in America, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is still being argued to this day. The wording hasn't changed in over 200 years yet cases identifying what it really means are clearly still working their way through the courts. So much so that appellate courts on both sides of the country are often at odds. And the judges that disagree on the interpretation have dedicated their lives to understanding the law.

When the lead designer posts something referring to 3.5, in my opinion, it gives some validity to me using 3.5 references. And I have stated that it is only the case if not countered by anything Paizo. But then to find a quote by that lead designer that says it works the same way as 3.5 and still have you and others say, "doesn't count" is the epitome of "no stupid, nothing you ever say matters."

If my argument is supported in the same way as the lead designer supports his (which I had no idea happened when I originally wrote my posts) and still no merit is given (not that you agree, but you flat out refuse any validity to my support) then we could clearly never agree.

But that is what the FAQ system is for. Right now we are in the appellate process, where we all present our arguments to the masses and see what happens and how the masses feel about it. If we are lucky, the powers that be will take up the case in the FAQ, much like the Supreme Court, and give us a ruling that is incontestable. But much like the Supreme Court, popularity and majority opinion are sometimes overruled.


Basically when you decide on the action it starts. The AoO takes place, then if you are able the original action is completed. If not then you can't. You also can not perform an action that you are not taking, and per RAW AoO's happen when actions are performed. Now of course some might say we have a rules contradiction since we have RAW disagreeing with itself, and I think that is valid if per RAW.

Disclaimer=Someone may have stated how there is no contradiction. I have not read every statement here.
----------------------------------
It really makes no sense to way that RAI you can just change actions--->Otherwise disrupting a spell with an AoO would not be possible many times.

PC: states "I cast a spell."

NPC: Hits him in the face.

PC: Well I better not cast that spell since I will probably lose it. I will move away from this face hitter. Then I will cast my spell.

If the argument is that the action has not taken place then you are free to choose another action. <----I don't advise trying this at anyone's table.

Also everyone should state if they are debating RAW or RAI. If you are debating RAW then you should also give your RAI stance for the purpose of an honest debate.

PS: In rules debates FAQ post trump messageboard post. The only time you should consider an exception is when the PDT member is trying to give intent, and/or saying an errata or updated FAQ is coming.


Here is what I think, as RAI (because RAW simply wasn't written thinking about a level of detail this deep)

Using your first exemple, Komoda:

Komoda wrote:

As to the charge scenario, here is what I meant.

You declare you are charging an enemy, 50' away, while adjacent to another enemy.

The adjacent enemy hits you with an Attack of Opportunity, it was a critical hit and you are now standing (barely) at 1 HP.

Do you have to continue the charge even though you know that the target of the charge has a reach weapon and will get an Attack of Opportunity against you?

#1 - You Declare/Start/Perform the Charge (YES! THIS actually starts to happen before the AoO).

#2 - You spent some movement to start the Charge, at the very least 5ft.

#3 - The enemy strikes an AoO, provoked by the charge, and reduces you to 1 HP.

#4 - You decide to stop, because now that you have 1 HP you don't wanna get hit by the other enemy's reach AoO, which hasn't happen yet (the dice hasn't been rolled yet).

Ok, now, Where Are You?

You already spent at least 5ft of your movement to start the charge and the enemy's AoO didn't stop your movement. I think you can choose to stay where you were or to complete your 5ft movement as part of the charge, either way you'll have spent 5ft of your movement. This 5ft movement doesn't count as a "5-foot step" since you had alredy started a charge action and already has a -2 to AC.

Now, you have -2 to AC from the started Charge and has spent at least 5ft from a regular move action. You can choose:

- Continue the full-round Charge action by continuing to move in a straight line and attacking the other enemy with the regular +2 to attack from the charge, and suffering the consequences. By contnuing the Charge you can move double your speed.

- Stay where you choose to be, use the rest of your move action to move wherever you like (you won't get hit by another AoO from that same enemy again for this move action), and use the rest of your actions (Standard, Swift, Free, No-Action, etc).

- You WON'T be able to make a full-attack against the enemy adjacent to you that hit you with the AoO, since you had already spent some of your movement as a move action, not a 5-foot step.

In a nutshell, If any action you declare/do has had any consequence, then it has at least started to happen, and after that it has to either be completed, aborted or you can use what's left of it in some other way, but not the whole action.


Where's your proof the charge can be aborted or changed in any way?


Kchaka wrote:
Here is what I think, as RAI


The charge rules clearly state what's up though. your obligated to go the whole way among other things.

"You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

I'm confused with how you ended up with that rai. This was clarified several times within this thread.


Komoda, I went and found the thread that you took that quote from, and I take back that he was being contradicted by the faq with using the word before. It is spelled out in the faq, plus 3.5 also does the same, but you somehow come up with something that isn't there. How do you justify what you're writing when the rulings are always that it happens before the triggering action is resolved?

"The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved."

I don't understand where your disagreement is from. It seems to me that you're not reading what's being pointed out to you, and you're not reading what's published correctly either. I would love a break down of your interpretation, and how you justify it with the rules and faqs of pathfinder. The 3.5 stuff I don't see you with a point either.

Could you quote/cite pathfinder rules and stuff with an argument? Can you justify your rai on subjects with rules too to the best of your ability? Where can you at all justify changing your actions up because you feel like it after an aoo happened? How do you validate your charge scenario when the charge rules state what's necessary to preform a charge?

For us to have a conversation about the constitution, we both need to be discussing the constitution, and base our arguments on what's written in the constitution. Please, cite the rules to back up your arguments, and leave 3.5 out of this.


RAW, the trip loop works. The thing is that the trip loop was an unintended consequence that caused the devs to go "Oh crap, what have we done? We didn't mean for it work that way." And so they disallowed it without altering the RAW. They simply informed us all "No trip loops allowed because we said so." This means that there is no congruance between tripping and any other type of AoO's so all this discussion and any comparison to other AoO actions is rather moot; the trip loop doesn't work because the trip loop was specifically disallowed, not because of any RAW. You guys are trying to reverse engineer rules and interpretations that were never intended.


born_of_fire,

I disagree. Trip lock (trip loop) does not work because the act of standing up has not yet resolved itself. The creature standing up has began the action but it has not been resolved because the AoO resolves first.
This is in the rules where it states the order in which AoOs and Actions are resolved.

Human Fighter,

Komoda hasn't been the first person to have his POV although I don't think I have seen anyone else try to use the Trip Lock information the way he is.

The usual two positions are:
Change action position:
If the action has not actually done anything (distance traveled or whatnot) then the fact that it provokes (or triggers a readied action) does not mean I have performed the action yet.
Because the AoO (or Readied Action) occurs before the action I have not yet expended my action and can do something else (except in the case of spellcasting which is a case of specific vs general and trumps the general in this case).

Cannot change action position:
Just because the AoO (or Readied Action) are resolved first does not mean that the provoking (or triggering) action has not begun.
There is no rules support allowing you to change your action after it has begun but before it has resolved.

Note: I am in the Cannot change action camp.

The only problem I have with Komoda in his debates are that he is using the Trip Lock information incorrectly. It supports neither side.


born_of_fire wrote:
RAW, the trip loop works. The thing is that the trip loop was an unintended consequence that caused the devs to go "Oh crap, what have we done? We didn't mean for it work that way." And so they disallowed it without altering the RAW. They simply informed us all "No trip loops allowed because we said so." This means that there is no congruance between tripping and any other type of AoO's so all this discussion and any comparison to other AoO actions is rather moot; the trip loop doesn't work because the trip loop was specifically disallowed, not because of any RAW. You guys are trying to reverse engineer rules and interpretations that were never intended.

This is incorrect. The trip lock doesn't work because that is how AoO's work. The FAQ merely clarifies how it works.

I take an action to stand up.
This triggers an AoO before my 'stand up' action is resolved.
The AoO knocks me prone. (which I was aleadyl prone, so no change in state)
I resolve my 'stand up' action. The resolution of standing up is to remove the prone condition.


I played 3.0 both before and after the FAQ in question. IMHO, the FAQ clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. Now, because folks like you can't take no for an answer, we have crazy long and needless discussions of the AoO rules. Remove tripping and its convoluted explanation from the AoO actions and resolving AoO's becomes very straight forward in comparison. Things are much simpler all around when you recognize that the only reason the trip loop doesn't work because the devs don't want it to and the FAQ is confusing as all get out because it's trying to make a reason where there really isn't one other than that.


Just in case Komoda is confused about the meaning of the word resolved, and from his posts I believe he is here is the definition.

re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
verb: resolve; 3rd person present: resolves; past tense: resolved; past participle: resolved; gerund or present participle: resolving

1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify; More
informalhammer out, thrash out, figure out
"this matter cannot be resolved overnight"

Medicine
cause (a symptom or condition) to disperse, subside, or heal.
"endoscopic biliary drainage can rapidly resolve jaundice"
(of a symptom or condition) disperse, subside, or heal.
"symptoms resolved after a median of four weeks"
Music
(of a discord) lead into a concord during the course of harmonic change.
Music
cause (a discord) to pass into a concord.
2.
decide firmly on a course of action.
"she resolved to call Dana as soon as she got home"
synonyms: determine, decide, make up one's mind, make a decision
"Bob resolved not to wait any longer"
(of a legislative body, committee, or other formal meeting) make a decision by a formal vote.
"the committee resolved that teachers should make their recommendations without knowledge of test scores"
synonyms: vote, pass a resolution, rule, decide formally, agree
"the committee resolved that the project should proceed"
3.
Chemistry
separate or cause to be separated into components.
synonyms: break down/up, separate, reduce, divide
"the compounds were resolved into their active constituents"
reduce a subject, statement, etc., by mental analysis into (separate elements or a more elementary form).
"the ability to resolve facts into their legal categories"
synonyms: analyze, dissect, break down, categorize
"the ability to resolve facts into their legal categories"
(of something seen at a distance) turn into a different form when seen more clearly.
"the orange glow resolved itself into four lanterns"
synonyms: turn, change, be transformed, be converted
"the gray smudge resolved into a sandy beach"
(of optical or photographic equipment) separate or distinguish between (closely adjacent objects).
"Hubble was able to resolve six variable stars in M31"
separately distinguish (peaks in a graph or spectrum).
Physics
analyze (a force or velocity) into components acting in particular directions.

noun
noun: resolve; plural noun: resolves

1.
firm determination to do something.
"she received information that strengthened her resolve"
synonyms: decision, resolution, commitment
"he made a resolve not to go there again"
US
a formal resolution by a legislative body or public meeting.

Origin


Gauss, Komoda is using 3.5 web thing, a designer post and the pathfinder faq to say that the aoo happens before anything exists at all. Nothing out of those things is saying what it says! It all says it happens before the triggering action that is happening resolves. I am all for arguing the rule that isn't spelled out specifically which is what happens when your action is immediately interrupted, but Komoda isn't doing that.

Is there anyone with a compelling argument using the rules to give their side of why you get to choose another action? The word preform is used all over the action rules, and you threaten by performing an action in a threatened square, so it seems logical that the action is indeed being preformed. There are no rules that I know of that allow you to change your action.

I recall a thread where people said you could change you actions if someone used a readied action to interrupt your action and I still don't understand where they were coming from. Here are some readied action rules.

Readying an Action wrote:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

What I read here is if you can continue, then you do so. Somehow people read this as if you can't continue, then you get to do other things. That's some One Piece observation haki going on to react to these things that don't exist if you think that, just like the no existing action that provokes.


born_of_fire wrote:
I played 3.0 both before and after the FAQ in question. IMHO, the FAQ clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. Now, because folks like you can't take no for an answer, we have crazy long and needless discussions of the AoO rules. Remove tripping and its convoluted explanation from the AoO actions and resolving AoO's becomes very straight forward in comparison. Things are much simpler all around when you recognize that the only reason the trip loop doesn't work because the devs don't want it to and the FAQ is confusing as all get out because it's trying to make a reason where there really isn't one other than that.

This is not 3.0, it is Pathfinder, the rules for Tripping were significantly different in 3.X.

In Pathfinder there is a clear reason in the RAW as to why it doesn't work.
The action to stand up has not been resolved until after the AoO is resolved. Because of that the target is still prone. Tripping a prone target means they are still prone...THEN they stand up.
The Devs are not violating RAW with the FAQ. They are following it.

As for the "folks like you" comment, perhaps you should keep personal attack comments out of the discussion.

Since you did not address who your post was a response to then I have to assume it was to one (or both) of the two possible people (myself or bbangerter) who responded to your post.
In that case, bbangerter and I are both clearly on the 'trip lock is not relevant to the thread' side of things so your statement is misplaced since it is treating us as if we are not.


born_of_fire wrote:
I played 3.0 both before and after the FAQ in question. IMHO, the FAQ clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. Now, because folks like you can't take no for an answer, we have crazy long and needless discussions of the AoO rules. Remove tripping and its convoluted explanation from the AoO actions and resolving AoO's becomes very straight forward in comparison. Things are much simpler all around when you recognize that the only reason the trip loop doesn't work because the devs don't want it to and the FAQ is confusing as all get out because it's trying to make a reason where there really isn't one other than that.

who are the folks who can't take 'no' for an answer, and what are these questions that are asked that receive this 'no' in which they are told?

Could you explain how by RAW AoO's actually work?

Could you provide proof of the motivations of why the trip loop faq exists?


Human Fighter,

I know exactly what Komoda is using. As I said, I have disagreed with him using it as a basis for his points and I keep pointing out to him that it is not relevant to this discussion (and why it is not relevant).

What I am trying to get across to you is that his position is not unique (although his method for getting there may be) and thus is probably worthy of a FAQ.


Human Fighter wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
I played 3.0 both before and after the FAQ in question. IMHO, the FAQ clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. Now, because folks like you can't take no for an answer, we have crazy long and needless discussions of the AoO rules. Remove tripping and its convoluted explanation from the AoO actions and resolving AoO's becomes very straight forward in comparison. Things are much simpler all around when you recognize that the only reason the trip loop doesn't work because the devs don't want it to and the FAQ is confusing as all get out because it's trying to make a reason where there really isn't one other than that.

who are the folks who can't take 'no' for an answer, and what are these questions that are asked that receive this 'no' in which they are told?

Could you explain how by RAW AoO's actually work?

Could you provide proof of the motivations of why the trip loop faq exists?

The folks who can't take no for an answer are the ones that require an explanation of why the trip loop doesn't work. Not just folks in this thread but anyone for whom "Egads, tripping and AoO's were not intended to work that way. We made a mistake creating RAW in a way that they could."

How AoO's work has been covered about 70 times over in this thread and yet the discussion keeps returning to "but tripping..."

Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I do agree with Komoda that the tripping rules are a direct port from 3.5 which were a direct port from 3.0.

I've got no skin in this game. My groups have no troubles resolving AoO's. It's prolly a waste of my time to point out that this is a legacy issue but it's not busy at work so I thought I'd give it a go.

Sometimes a hand wave has to suffice. Keep in mind that my overarching point is that tripping as part of an AoO has specific rules and that the dog's breakfast disallowing the trip loop should not be used to muddy other rulings on AoO actions or be used as an example of how AoO's work in general.


I'm very aware that the action redo isn't unique, and sorry if I haven't been clear in acknowledging that. I made the previous thread because a vc believes in the redo, and up until that point I had never heard of anyone seeing it differently. I just don't understand how people come to this other than using the excuse that things aren't spelled out in the rules clear enough.

I would love an faq to exist so no one has to deal with this ever again.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
born_of_fire wrote:
RAW, the trip loop works. The thing is that the trip loop was an unintended consequence that caused the devs to go "Oh crap, what have we done? We didn't mean for it work that way." And so they disallowed it without altering the RAW. They simply informed us all "No trip loops allowed because we said so." This means that there is no congruance between tripping and any other type of AoO's so all this discussion and any comparison to other AoO actions is rather moot; the trip loop doesn't work because the trip loop was specifically disallowed, not because of any RAW. You guys are trying to reverse engineer rules and interpretations that were never intended.

the FAQ is a clarification, not a rule change.


born_of_fire,

The tripping rules are not a direct port from 3.5. They were completely re-written.

3.5 PHB p158-159 wrote:

TRIP

You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.
Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid (such as a dwarf). If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.
Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack.
Being Tripped (Prone): A tripped character is prone (see Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers). Standing up is a move action.
Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount.
Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons, including the spiked chain, dire flail, heavy flail, light flail, guisarme, halberd, and whip, can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.

CRB p201 wrote:

Trip

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target’s CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures— such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

All of the special attacks now called "Combat Maneuvers" were completely re-written.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To the question of not completing a charge that you started:-

Although it doesn't say so directly, it is a logical and inevitable consequence of the rules that are written that you never have to complete an action you start.

Why? Because taking any one of the Action In Combat on the tables at the beginning of the Combat chapter doesn't force you to do anything, it allows you to do things which are consistent with that type of action.

For example, taking the 'move your speed' action doesn't force you to move anywhere, but if you do move then you must follow the rules for moving as described in that Action: move a number of squares up to your speed. Note that zero squares is not more than your speed, so is acceptable.

Another example: full attack. Taking this action doesn't force you to attack anyone. It allows you to take as many attacks as you are entitled to take.

Every Action In Combat works the same way. When you take the 'charge' action, that doesn't force you to charge anyone. What it does is allow you to charge any viable target; 'viable' regarding the charge rules. This action only allows movement in a certain way (valid target, straight path, must stop in the closest square from which you can attack the target, etc.), so any movement you choose to make must follow those movement restrictions, but you don't have to move if you don't want to. The charge action also limits how and who you can attack, and any attack you make must follow those restrictions. But taking that action that allows you to attack doesn't force you to attack!

The rules assume you are trying to do your best. If you are trying to attack, the rules assume that you are trying your best to hit and assume that the target is trying his best not to be hit. The rules don't need to be written to allow you to deliberately miss! In such a circumstance, the DM should earn his corn and adjudicate. It may be that he just let's you miss, or he may require a bluff check if you're trying to disguise the fact that you're missing on purpose.

TL;DR: you aren't forced to complete a charge that you start, or any action that you start.

This doesn't mean that you get a replacement for an action you choose to abort!

Silver Crusade

Another example: if you choose the Action In Combat called 'stand up from prone', this doesn't force you to stand up, it allows you to stand up.

Nor does choosing that Action In Combat provoke an AoO. Actually trying to stand up (which you are allowed to do, because you chose the 'stand up from prone' Action) is what provokes the AoO.

If you choose the 'stand up from prone' Action In Combat, that costs your move action, but doesn't force you to actually stand up. Since that Action only allows you to stand up, you have a choice of standing up or not standing up. Your move action has already been spent at that point, so use it or lose it. If you choose not to stand, then you've wasted that move action and will never get it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I don't think you're obligated to finish a charge that you've started, any more than you're obligated to take a 3rd iterative attack against a downed opponent who is the only thing in reach. "Must" in that sentence is simply delineating the conditions you need to be able to fulfill in order to take the action.


born_of_fire wrote:
I played 3.0 both before and after the FAQ in question. IMHO, the FAQ clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. Now, because folks like you can't take no for an answer, we have crazy long and needless discussions of the AoO rules. Remove tripping and its convoluted explanation from the AoO actions and resolving AoO's becomes very straight forward in comparison. Things are much simpler all around when you recognize that the only reason the trip loop doesn't work because the devs don't want it to and the FAQ is confusing as all get out because it's trying to make a reason where there really isn't one other than that.

How can you trip someone who is already prone?

Now in real life we would wait for you to start to stand up and knock you back down.

However if PF you are either up or down. There is not state in between standing and prone, so you are either attempting a trip on someone who is standing or someone who is prone.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I feel that any action can be ended at any time, in the same way you can both fail a will save and purposefully fail a will save, you can also, be forced to not be able to complete an action and can also force yourself to fail being able to complete an action.


Disrupting a spell has been shown to be an exception to the rules, by Jason Bulmhan himself.

Jason Bulmhan wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If it were the norm, then what is the exception he is discussing?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

Disrupting a spell has been shown to be an exception to the rules, by Jason Bulmhan himself.

Jason Bulmhan wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If it were the norm, then what is the exception he is discussing?

devs themselves say that posts on the forums are not indicative of design team choices, as single devs can be wrong, FAQs(and actual products) are the whole team making a concerted effort and thus effect the rules.

also, as stated previously, tripping someone doesn't stop them from moving, the prone condition does. tripping someone does not prevent you being able to attack, as you can attack while prone, thus a trip AoO on an attack, does not impede someone attacking.

I don't actually see how this is relevant to order, as this talks about an action being able to actually stop another action. bolded the relevant section.


For the charge I did find wording that supports that it's optional if you swing

Attacking on a Charge: wrote:
After moving, you ,may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

A rules argument argument for being able to stop mid charge?


Komoda wrote:

Disrupting a spell has been shown to be an exception to the rules, by Jason Bulmhan himself.

Jason Bulmhan wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If it were the norm, then what is the exception he is discussing?

Another example is moving and then suddenly finding out your opponent has longer than normal reach for his size. Can you then decide "well I just won't move"?

It is basically the same as my spell example by deciding "well I just won't cast".

Since you did not take the provoking action does the AoO still take place?

The rules do state that taking the action is what prompts the AoO.

If everyone can just back out of every decision they make can you just do that to avoid AoO's?


So then, there is no exception that he is discussing?

Wraith,

1: no, assuming he found out when attacked.
2: exception to rule. Which is the point of my last post.
3: to late, never said you didn't suffer the consequences.
4: they also state the AoO happens first.
4: no, I never made that claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:

Disrupting a spell has been shown to be an exception to the rules, by Jason Bulmhan himself.

Jason Bulmhan wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If it were the norm, then what is the exception he is discussing?

I already explained what that was.

The disruption to spellcasting is a specific rule that causes you to lose that action.
There is no rule for tripping, disarming, etc. that states you will lose the action. However, he does state that other game rules can dicate an interruption (ie. prevent you from completing an action).

How does this work?
1) I move and am tripped.
2) Is there a specific rule to prevent me from moving because I have been tripped? No. (This is where he says no such exception exists.)
3) Is there a specific rule to prevent me from moving (using normal speed) because I am prone? Yes (This is where he says "unless other game rules would dictate".)

What he is saying is that there is no specific 'if you are tripped you lose your action regardless of what you can do' rule like there is for spellcasting.
That does not mean there is not an effect that may screw you unless you can deal with it somehow (such as standing up as a swift action).

Summary: there is a colossal difference between losing your action (such as the spellcasting rule) and being situationally unable to complete your action (such as being prone while moving).


Komoda wrote:

So then, there is no exception that he is discussing?

Wraith,

1: no, assuming he found out when attacked.
2: exception to rule. Which is the point of my last post.
3: to late, never said you didn't suffer the consequences.
4: they also state the AoO happens first.
4: no, I never made that claim.

"The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. "<---In the section you quoted

This is there because it(concentration check) gets to determine if the AoO can stop an action. That is the exception.

For other cases of an AoO, there is no other check coming into play.

As an example if I make an AoO to trip you, then you don't get a check to see if you can still keep moving. You just fall(go prone) if I roll high enough.


I don't think there is any contention as to the inability to walk away after being tripped.

But as rules go, one action happens before another. As Mr. Bulmhan said, no middle ground. Sometimes, there are exceptions. Mr. Bulmhan is describing that exception as, "the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed."

No such exception exists for tripping. He explicitly states that in the very next sentence.

There is no way that the exception that he is talking about is the D20 check. I may be wrong about the fact you can change your move action to something else, but I really doubt I am wrong about the D20 check I just mentioned.


Komoda, you are also ignoring what he said regarding them technically happening simultaneously.

I don't know what D20 check you are referencing.

1) Jason is stating that there is a specific exception that causes you to lose the spell.

2) He then states there is no specific exception that causes you to lose the action when tripped.

3) He then states that there may be other rules that prevent you from completing the action.

It is #3 you keep ignoring and you are taking #1 and #2 out of context.
Context: specific rules may cause you to lose your action, if there is not a specific rule then there may be other rules that cause you to be unable to complete the action.

An inability to complete an action is NOT loss of action.
Please stop conflating them.


Komoda wrote:

I don't think there is any contention as to the inability to walk away after being tripped.

But as rules go, one action happens before another. As Mr. Bulmhan said, no middle ground. Sometimes, there are exceptions. Mr. Bulmhan is describing that exception as, "the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed."

No such exception exists for tripping. He explicitly states that in the very next sentence.

There is no way that the exception that he is talking about is the D20 check. I may be wrong about the fact you can change your move action to something else, but I really doubt I am wrong about the D20 check I just mentioned.

You miss my point about the trip. I was not talking about walking away. I was referencing a counter-check to avoid the trip in the same way the concentration might allow you to keep the spell if you roll high enough. That is why spellcasting is the exception. It has a counter-roll. He specifically called out the concentration check as the exception. Now you can argue that he chose his words poorly, but I think he meant it in that manner, and that is why I quoted that in my last post.


Gauss, I was referring (D20 check) to Wraithstrike's opinion that the mechanic of rolling the D20 is the exception, and that his opinion continues with the idea that interrupting the spell as the AoO happens during the spellcasting is not the exception. I can not find any validity to that position.

As to your list:

1) Agreed
2) He also says, there is no middle-ground (barring the exception) and that the AoO happens before as it cannot happen in the middle of the action.
3) Agreeed. All examples listed by him and (I'm sorry Human Fighter) the 3.5 Rules of the Game are all conditions that limit any and all action: death and being unconscious.

It all comes down to me believing that the AoO happens before the triggering action unless there is an exception.

It isn't that I am ignoring what you are saying. I am not agreeing with what you are saying. And that is why we are working for a FAQ.

I keep coming back to trip because:

You attempt to stand provoking an attack of opportunity. Why? Because standing provokes.
The threatening character uses trip for the AoO. Why? Because he has Ki Throw.
The trip is resolved as successful. Why? Because his trip maneuver was higher than your CMD.
You are prone in a whole new square. Why? Because you were thrown there.
You stand up. Why? Because the trip happens before you stand up.
Why aren't you stuck back on the ground again in a whole new square? Because the AoO does not interrupt your action as it happens before your action.

I may be incorrect as to the ability to change an action, and I recognize that. I do not believe I am incorrect in the section posted above.

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Action expenditures and Attacks of Opportunity / Readied Actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.