Action expenditures and Attacks of Opportunity / Readied Actions


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Komoda wrote:

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.

I bolded your problem. You keep insisting that it is 'before your action'. There is zero rules support for that. Not even the FAQ or the Dev comments you keep quoting state that. In fact, the Dev comment you keep quoting states the opposite, that they are simultaneous but one has to be resolved before the other.

You believe that AoOs occur before the action that caused them and thus the action that caused them has not happened yet.
The rules simply do not bear this out.
The AoO is resolved before the action that caused it. That does not mean it occurs first. That does not mean that the precipitating action is not in progress.

Nothing you have quoted taken in context says otherwise. Not any of the trip FAQ, rules, or Jason's posts.


Gauss, it is the same problem for both of us, because I believe I have shown over and over again where it DOES say that and you have no support otherwise.

The English language sucks in that respect. People go to court everyday because both sides are SURE they understand the contract and that the other side is incorrect. It happens.

Hopefully we will get an FAQ response and put the whole thing to rest, then you can buy me an ale! It doesn't matter who is correct, you can still buy it!

Oh, and if the Trip Lock was legit, I would agree with your position 100%.


Komoda, there isn't an issue with language though. Can you reply back that you acknowledge that AoO's happen during the action that provoked them, and before they're resolved? The thread is mainly trying to point this out to you. The triggering action is happening, the the AoO happens, then the triggering action is resolved. It's in the FAQ, and it's even in your 3.5 stuff. The designer is also agreeing with this, and a month later, the FAQ was made stating this.

Please, acknowledge that it's Triggering Action, Aoo, RESOLVING the action.

If you disagree with this, you NEED to show why with rules, but please, at least ACKNOWLEDGE IT!


Are you hung up on the bolded part?

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?

If so than it is quite obvious that it does not actually take place before the entirety of the action.

Consider this scenario, the PC starts outside the monster's threatened range, then tries to move though it. If the AoO happened before the move action to move then it would happen outside of the monster's threat and the PC would be prone in the square on space outside the monster's reach.
It makes more sense that he is talking about a sub-action action of moving or standing rather than the super-action that is "move your speed" or "stand up from prone".

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Komoda - you have never, in all your posts, quoted any rule that says an AoO starts before the provoking action starts. The rule that says an AoO resolves before the provoking action resolves doesn't support your position - all that says is that the AoO completes before the provoking action completes. The sequence of actions is:


  • Provoking action starts
  • The AoO is triggered, interrupting the in-progress action
  • (if the AoO itself provokes, that happens here)
  • The AoO completes (is resolved)
  • The interrupted action may continue, if possible.

The rules make it very clear that you have to perform an action in order to provoke an AoO.

But you probably aren't going to get a FAQ response; Paizo historically don't bother to post on an issue where the vast preponderance of posters support the intended reading of the rules, no matter how vehemently the holders of the opposing view insist the rules can be read to support their position.


Human Fighter, you're so funny.

I have acknowledged that I don't agree like, 30 times. I believe that if I am incorrect, the trip lock is possible, per what I believe is your interpretation of RAW. I believe the FAQ is specifically stating your interpretation is incorrect.

Is that the acknowledgement you were looking for?


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.

I will quote it for you again.

Quote:
The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events

He specifically says that is the exception.

However I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone so hopefully this one can be cleared up pretty quickly by the PDT.


NikolaiJuno, being outside the threat range does not work in this argument. The AoO can't happen until you are within the threat range. You would have to actually move at least one square before attempting to leave the threat range.

I get where you are going. I never said that every single part of everything that you did never happens. You leave square 1, no problem. You try to leave square 2, you are now tripped, in square 2. This is a clear case of losing/using up your move action as you have actually moved.

That is the line that I draw, anyway.


JohnF,

I feel this:

"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."

Is the same as this:

"So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the spell is cast), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed."

If not, what is "the action"? The only two actions in the statement are the AoO and the casting of a spell. The AoO can't technically happen before the AoO.

Sorry if you think that is ZERO support. I find it rather supportive.

One can only hold out hope for an FAQ as this comes up again and again over the years.

And imagine, just for a second, if I am correct. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?!


Komoda wrote:

NikolaiJuno, being outside the threat range does not work in this argument. The AoO can't happen until you are within the threat range. You would have to actually move at least one square before attempting to leave the threat range.

I get where you are going. I never said that every single part of everything that you did never happens. You leave square 1, no problem. You try to leave square 2, you are now tripped, in square 2. This is a clear case of losing/using up your move action as you have actually moved.

That is the line that I draw, anyway.

But why?

If the movement of 5' is what triggered the AoO why is the starting of the move your speed action included in the "happens before" if the AoO is triggered by the first 5' when it isn't if it's triggered by the second 5'?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
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.

the ruling that provides an exception is to an action stopping another and thus causing them to lose the action, NOT the order in which they occur. This post has no relevance to anything other than that.


Because it happens before the triggering event, not before the entire turn. Let's say I used the full attack action for 3 attacks:

Attack 1, attack and hit, doing damage.
Attack 2, Attack and miss
Attack 3, attempt to disarm, provoking AoO.
AoO happens, moves between Attack 2 and Attack 3, I get disarmed.
Attack 3, I have no weapon to disarm you with. Attacks 1 and 2 are not affected.


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?

the bolded is the relevant area, the AoO occurs before it is completed, not before it happens.


Then what is (and technically before the action) referring to?


Komoda wrote:
Because it happens before the triggering event, not before the entire turn.

And the triggering event is the act of standing up or the 5' of movement, not the initiating of the stand up action or the move your speed action.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

JohnF,

I feel this:

"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."

Is the same as this:

"So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the spell is cast), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed."

If not, what is "the action"? The only two actions in the statement are the AoO and the casting of a spell. The AoO can't technically happen before the AoO.

Sorry if you think that is ZERO support. I find it rather supportive.

One can only hold out hope for an FAQ as this comes up again and again over the years.

And imagine, just for a second, if I am correct. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?!

once again, he is saying that the exception is not that it goes before, but that the action actually stops and uses up the "cast spell" action.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
Then what is (and technically before the action) referring to?

that technically speaking, the AoO can be considered or handled as if it happened prior to the action taking place.

technically, doesn't mean literally, it means "for all intents and purposes" and it is used in this context to mean "for all intents and purposes for determining which effect to resolves first".

why? because immediately prior it says "So while the AoO occurs before the spell is complete", meaning that technically it happens first for the purpose of determining if the action can complete or not.

once again, you have to read the line in context, as it only comments and alters the form of the preceding writing and not the entire opinion of the piece.

TO CLARIFY

the action actually HAS BEEN USED, however, you act like it hasn't for determining the order of effect of the AoO or the disruption ability in this case.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Because it happens before the triggering event, not before the entire turn.
And the triggering event is the act of standing up or the 5' of movement, not the initiating of the stand up action or the move your speed action.

And since nothing has happened except for that, nothing has happened.

Paradox, I know.


I am pretty sure that "technically" means exactly the opposite of "for all intents and purposes."

technically(adverb)

according to the exact meaning; according to the facts


Komoda wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Because it happens before the triggering event, not before the entire turn.
And the triggering event is the act of standing up or the 5' of movement, not the initiating of the stand up action or the move your speed action.

And since nothing has happened except for that, nothing has happened.

Paradox, I know.

So you'd get to finish standing up if able to. Or finish moving, if able to. since you started to stand up, or started that first 5' of movement.

You successfully moving 5' before provoking or successfully moving 0' before provoking should be handled the same. Both lock you into the moving action.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

I am pretty sure that "technically" means exactly the opposite of "for all intents and purposes."

technically(adverb)

according to the exact meaning; according to the facts

yes, and in this context, it means "by the rules you process the AoO first" not "the AoO IS first"

Technically(adverb)
with reference to the technique displayed

Liberty's Edge

Komoda wrote:
Then what is (and technically before the action) referring to?

If I understand what you are referencing, it has to do with the order of operations for resolving actions and any AoO that results from said actions. It's a game-ism that makes allowances for the fact that while "in reality" things are occuring simultaneously, in order for the game to run smoothly—an ironic statement considering the nature of the discussion, I do agree—things have to happen in a specified order so that we all don't go crazy trying to keep track of stuff.

In the case of casting a spell, "in reality" the AoO occurs while the caster is casting the spell; for the game, the player declares that a spell is being cast, the AoO happens, then the player casts the spell (after passing a possible concentration check).

In the case of a prone character, the player declares that they are going to stand up. The AoO happens, then the player stands up and removes the prone condition (this is why trip-locks arent possible—the prone condition isn't removed when the stand up is declared, it's removed after the character stands up.

In the case of moving, the player declares that they are moving. The AoO happens, then the player moves if able to do so. If tripped, no more movement is allowed if they've already moved any distance. If they haven't moved any distance, I personally would allow them to crawl 5 feet (which costs their entire movement rate, and would provoke its own AoO), otherwise they're stuck where they're at.


Komoda wrote:

Human Fighter, you're so funny.

I have acknowledged that I don't agree like, 30 times. I believe that if I am incorrect, the trip lock is possible, per what I believe is your interpretation of RAW. I believe the FAQ is specifically stating your interpretation is incorrect.

Is that the acknowledgement you were looking for?

I'm being completely serious, and not at all trying to be funny. I want you to acknowledge THE RULES AS THEY'RE WRITTEN. The process of when the AoO happens is before the action that provoked it RESOLVES, and not BEFORE IT EVER TRIGGERS. I am so frustrated because it seems like you're intentionally neglecting this and trolling people. Your position as you've been stating it isn't supported.

I was also saying if you do disagree, then please, present rules that are cited and quoted here to support your position.

The most important thing is that you at least acknowledge finally when the AoO happens, and that's BEFORE THE TRIGGERING ACTION RESOLVES.


Human, I am acknowledging the rules as written. They have been written the same way for close to 15 years now.

We just interrupt that writing differently.

Hangar, I still disagree. The stander is never "half-standing" is the reason why, IMHO. He never starts standing until after the AoO happens, technically.

Just my 2 CPs.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

I am pretty sure that "technically" means exactly the opposite of "for all intents and purposes."

technically(adverb)

according to the exact meaning; according to the facts

I feel like replying to this a second time to clarify that that definition is also a likely use of the word, but it is an adverb and thus effects a verb, the verb being

"So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed"

this changes the meaning of IS from being in all ways, to only being in the ways of rules or the law(via context).

I do like analyzing diction.

Liberty's Edge

Komoda wrote:

Human, I am acknowledging the rules as written. They have been written the same way for close to 15 years now.

We just interrupt that writing differently.

Hangar, I still disagree. The stander is never "half-standing" is the reason why, IMHO. He never starts standing until after the AoO happens, technically.

Just my 2 CPs.

I guess what I don't understand with what your saying here is how the AoO would happen then?

If they aren't in the process of standing up (whether or not they are actually standing) then what is provoking the AoO?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Komoda wrote:

Human, I am acknowledging the rules as written. They have been written the same way for close to 15 years now.

We just interrupt that writing differently.

Hangar, I still disagree. The stander is never "half-standing" is the reason why, IMHO. He never starts standing until after the AoO happens, technically.

Just my 2 CPs.

I guess what I don't understand with what your saying here is how the AoO would happen then?

If they aren't in the process of standing up (whether or not they are actually standing) then what is provoking the AoO?

and to add to this question, what is the AoO interrupting?


Komoda, how is there any room to interpret this differently?

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.

Explain how you can disagree, PLEASE! The action is HAPPENING, and it's BEFORE it RESOLVES, not BEFORE it HAPPENS.

The Designer post isn't going to written perfectly too. A month after his post, the FAQ exists. Regardless, nitpicking the post doesn't get you very far because it's just a forum post, and not a FAQ.

Please, respond discussing the wording in which you disagree with. Please, respond with RULES to support your claims.

Again, it says RESOLVES.


It's important that people view the game as mechanics, and not through real life cinematics. The character mechanic wise is never lifting themselves up, but you can RP it that way. The character just gets a PRONE condition, and if you choose to resolve that condition, you have the move action option to STAND UP. You choose to preform the action, and then it provokes, and things may or may not happen in regards of AoO's. You still have the PRONE condition on you, so adding it on you again doesn't do anything. So, you've began to preform the action, it provoked, AoO was or wasn't taken, and then you complete the action you're preforming and stand up. You now just simply take off the PRONE condition, and continue on with the game.


The whole point, as I remember from all the conversations spanning over almost 15 years, is that they had to have a defining mechanical line drawn. It was decided that the line would be that the AoO happens before the provoking act. It was even discussed that it would lead to game mechanic paradoxes. But it was made clear, in days gone past, that those game mechanic paradoxes were better than having things happen mid-action.

I know a lot of this is rules philosophy from 3.5 (Human, shhh), but I believe it applies for three main reasons.

1) The Paizo and 3.5 AoO rules match word-for-word, comma-for-comma.
2) The Paizo and 3.5 Trip Lock FAQs came to the same ruling, but with different words.
3) Mr. Bulmhan stated Trip Lock always worked one way, even pointing out that it still works the way it did in 3.5.

It was also decided that Spellcasting would break that rule, creating the exception. Mr. Bulmhan points out that it is in fact an exception and not to use interrupting spellcasting with AoOs as the basis for how AoOs work.

In a nutshell, that is the history that I remember. I never knew anyone really thought otherwise until last week. So maybe I am bonkers. But I assure you, I am not trolling or trying to be difficult. I am applying years of information, Wizards' forum posts, Sage Advice, Dragon & Dungeon magazine articles, the original 3.5 play-test (which my group was a part of), Paizo play-tests, Paizo forum posts (I was in military training during 2010 when the one Mr. Bulmhan posted in happened so I missed it) and as much logic as I can muster.

And maybe I am applying it all wrong. I have always recognized that possibility. It doesn't mean I doubt my position, just that I am aware that anyone can make a mistake.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

The whole point, as I remember from all the conversations spanning over almost 15 years, is that they had to have a defining mechanical line drawn. It was decided that the line would be that the AoO happens before the provoking act. It was even discussed that it would lead to game mechanic paradoxes. But it was made clear, in days gone past, that those game mechanic paradoxes were better than having things happen mid-action.

I know a lot of this is rules philosophy from 3.5 (Human, shhh), but I believe it applies for three main reasons.

1) The Paizo and 3.5 AoO rules match word-for-word, comma-for-comma.
2) The Paizo and 3.5 Trip Lock FAQs came to the same ruling, but with different words.
3) Mr. Bulmhan stated Trip Lock always worked one way, even pointing out that it still works the way it did in 3.5.

It was also decided that Spellcasting would break that rule, creating the exception. Mr. Bulmhan points out that it is in fact an exception and not to use interrupting spellcasting with AoOs as the basis for how AoOs work.

In a nutshell, that is the history that I remember. I never knew anyone really thought otherwise until last week. So maybe I am bonkers. But I assure you, I am not trolling or trying to be difficult. I am applying years of information, Wizards' forum posts, Sage Advice, Dragon & Dungeon magazine articles, the original 3.5 play-test (which my group was a part of), Paizo play-tests, Paizo forum posts (I was in military training during 2010 when the one Mr. Bulmhan posted in happened so I missed it) and as much logic as I can muster.

And maybe I am applying it all wrong. I have always recognized that possibility. It doesn't mean I doubt my position, just that I am aware that anyone can make a mistake.

while the musings are nice, they are not RAW. and since we're in the rules forum please only post published rulings as fact or arguement.


By your interpretation Komoda:

Can I, as a wizard, attempt to punch someone without IUS (provoking AOO) and then instead of following through, convert my action to a spell which now doesn't provoke?

This seems farcical.

Silver Crusade

Komoda wrote:
The whole point, as I remember from all the conversations spanning over almost 15 years, is that they had to have a defining mechanical line drawn. It was decided that the line would be that the AoO happens before the provoking act.

First, according to every rule on the subject in any rulebook for both 3:5 and PF, the AoO doesn't happen before the provoking act happens, the AoO is resolved before the provoking act resolves!

Second, the 'provoking act' is not the player choosing the 'stand up from prone' Action In Combat, it the the actual act of standing up which is the provoking act; an act which is only allowed because you chose the 'stand up from prone' Action In Combat.

The 'provoking act' is not the player choosing the 'move your speed' Action In Combat' which is the provoking act; it is the actual act of leaving a threatened square which is the provoking act. And the act of 'leaving a square' is only permitted because you have already used your move action by choosing to take the 'move your speed' Action In Combat'. Since you must choose that Action In Combat before you are allowed to try and move your mini at all, then the fact that you were trying to move it means that you are already using the 'move your speed' Action In Combat.

The AoO resolves before the mini leaves the square, but not before you took the 'move your speed' Action In Combat.

The very fact that you are trying to move your mini means that the move action has already been spent and the 'move your speed' Action In Combat is underway.


I just thought of an improvement to the button analogy:

By pressing a button, you perform an action.

An attack of opporunity is an electric shock you recieve when you press the button. This may break the action (maybe the shock short-circuits the button), but it does not suddenly let you press another button by doing so. You have still pressed the button.

All of the rules including the 3.5 FAQs work with this analogy. The 3.5 FAQs simply confirm that the electric shock is resolved before the action is performed and thus may break the action even after the button has been pressed, like in my short circuit analogy.

For a real-game example: a monster tried to move out of a threatened square, provoked, and was killed by the attack. As per the 3.5 FAQ You would place this monster's corpse in the square it tried to move from, not the square it was trying to move into. The AOO happens before the action is resolved.


I don't know what else to do. I have literally pointed out the wording of 'resolve' repeatedly, and you ignore it entirely. I asked you to acknowledge it directly many times too, and you flat out ignore it as well. The things you've been writing aren't supported at all, and you ignore. You are completely ignoring what is being written in the things you use to defend yourself, and cherry pick and twist. You post irrelevant things, and it derails everything into just trying to explain that simple wording exists that you're not paying attention to. Review this entire thread, and the one previous to it which was linked in the first post, and you just twist and ignore the same things over, and over. I feel like you might be the type of person that's unreasonable, and will stick with your position to the bitter end, and never recognize anything the other side has, and that is extremely frustrating that you're on these rules forums if that's really the case.

Let's resolve this issue of you being accused of ignoring the wording of the rules, please. I beg you to literally write out the Pathfinder trip FAQ, bold the word 'resolve', then respond to everyone about how you feel about it with how it all means to you. I will respect people disagreeing, but I genuinely feel you haven't read things properly.


Bandw2 wrote:
Komoda wrote:

The whole point, as I remember from all the conversations spanning over almost 15 years, is that they had to have a defining mechanical line drawn. It was decided that the line would be that the AoO happens before the provoking act. It was even discussed that it would lead to game mechanic paradoxes. But it was made clear, in days gone past, that those game mechanic paradoxes were better than having things happen mid-action.

I know a lot of this is rules philosophy from 3.5 (Human, shhh), but I believe it applies for three main reasons.

1) The Paizo and 3.5 AoO rules match word-for-word, comma-for-comma.
2) The Paizo and 3.5 Trip Lock FAQs came to the same ruling, but with different words.
3) Mr. Bulmhan stated Trip Lock always worked one way, even pointing out that it still works the way it did in 3.5.

It was also decided that Spellcasting would break that rule, creating the exception. Mr. Bulmhan points out that it is in fact an exception and not to use interrupting spellcasting with AoOs as the basis for how AoOs work.

In a nutshell, that is the history that I remember. I never knew anyone really thought otherwise until last week. So maybe I am bonkers. But I assure you, I am not trolling or trying to be difficult. I am applying years of information, Wizards' forum posts, Sage Advice, Dragon & Dungeon magazine articles, the original 3.5 play-test (which my group was a part of), Paizo play-tests, Paizo forum posts (I was in military training during 2010 when the one Mr. Bulmhan posted in happened so I missed it) and as much logic as I can muster.

And maybe I am applying it all wrong. I have always recognized that possibility. It doesn't mean I doubt my position, just that I am aware that anyone can make a mistake.

while the musings are nice, they are not RAW. and since we're in the rules forum please only post published rulings as fact or arguement.

This is the largest falsehood of the rules forum. Can you use Armor Spikes with a 2-handed weapon? No. Why? Clearly not because of RAW. It is because you don't have any more hands. Why do you need hands for a weapon that doesn't need hands? Because the Devs have ruled, quite clearly, that it is against what even they have called the unwritten rules of pathfinder.


Human, Lets RESOLVE the issue that RESOLVING the AoO BEFORE the action that triggers it is NOT exclusive to the AoO happening BEFORE the action that triggers it.

You argument has no merit.


Komoda wrote:

Human, Lets RESOLVE the issue that RESOLVING the AoO BEFORE the action that triggers it is NOT exclusive to the AoO happening BEFORE the action that triggers it.

You argument has no merit.

Uh... there's some tortured syntax if I've ever read any. You do not resolve an event before it has begun.

If two parties in a legal dispute settle out of court, the you do not resolve the court case (which has not begun), you resolve the legal dispute. If two countries are on the brink of bloodshed over disputed lands, you do not resolve the war (which has not begun), you resolve the disagreement. You cannot resolve a situation which does not exist any more than you can repair an object which has not yet been manufactured.

All the AoO rules are about is an order of events by which you decide who gets to do what, and the critical thing for the game developers is the order in which the events are resolved. Resolving a trip attempt before resolving the action that triggered it solves trip-locking, for instance.

There isn't much need to speak to the order that events are begun because events that have not begun... have not begun.

Think of this as a FIFO (first-in, first-out) stack. Someone starts to stand up, but the DM pauses that event to resolve someone else's AoO, which is an event "stacked" on top of the first. In fact, that AoO could potentially (in some odd circumstances) trigger yet another interruption, such as perhaps a readied action. You simply stack a third action on the other two, and resolve them in order. Perhaps the readied action is a disarm attempt, which - if successful - removes the paralysis weapon the AoO'er was using, which ruins the AoO, which allows the bottom, first action to complete successfully.

Stuff. And things. But again, it's a FIFO stack.


It is first in, last out.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Komoda wrote:
stuff
while the musings are nice, they are not RAW. and since we're in the rules forum please only post published rulings as fact or arguement.
This is the largest falsehood of the rules forum. Can you use Armor Spikes with a 2-handed weapon? No. Why? Clearly not because of RAW. It is because you don't have any more hands. Why do you need hands for a weapon that doesn't need hands? Because the Devs have ruled, quite clearly, that it is against what even they have called the unwritten rules of pathfinder.

and that ruling was in a FAQ, making it RAW...

seriously, the rules of the rules forum are that you need to answer the question with actual rulings, no home brew solutions or personal solutions to unclear or uncovered situations.

basically use actual rules the devs have published and not random things the devs have said on the forums is what i'm trying to say.

once again though, as per the syntax of the portion you keep quoting, it means that while in reality the triggering action has taking place, for all rules calculations that you do the AoO first.


Komoda wrote:


This is the largest falsehood of the rules forum. Can you use Armor Spikes with a 2-handed weapon? No. Why? Clearly not because of RAW. It is because you don't have any more hands. Why do you need hands for a weapon that doesn't need hands? Because the Devs have ruled, quite clearly, that it is against what even they have called the unwritten rules of pathfinder.

This is incorrect, by definition.

RAW = rules as WRITTEN.
Unwritten rules are, by definition, not written.
Now it was RAI, rules as intended, prior to the FAQ.
With the FAQ now in place it has become RAW.


My point is, it was discussed before the FAQ. It was discussed after the FAQ. Some FAQs change based on these discussions.

There is no question that the 10' reach diagonal that recently changed was RAW one way, and is now RAW a different way.

This is a place for DISCUSSION. Not a place to only copy and paste the RAW.

And, while most disagree, I believe I am discussing both RAW and RAI and that you are all bonkers. Which again, may prove that I am the one that is bonkers.


Komoda wrote:
It is first in, last out.

Man, I am SO sorry. Absolutely, positively, yes. Thought it, knew it, kept typing the wrong thing.


No worries, it happens.


Komoda, does this mean if I start casting a spell and the AOO makes me lose it, I can then just start casting a new, different spell?

After all, RAW the language says I lose the spell but not the action, which it would have to call out specifically according to your interpretation.

I feel like we're approaching reducto ad absurdum.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Blakmane wrote:

Komoda, does this mean if I start casting a spell and the AOO makes me lose it, I can then just start casting a new, different spell?

After all, RAW the language says I lose the spell but not the action, which it would have to call out specifically according to your interpretation.

I feel like we're approaching reducto ad absurdum.

I feel like we could just use Occam's razor, in that we need to assume the least that the action is in the process of being used, and thus you simply calculate it before hand since there is no inter-action, allowing for actions to take place at the same time.

the great things about rule systems used by humans, is that they don't have to process things like a computer and thus this is all easily possible.


Blakemane, that question has been asked a few times already. The answer is no. It is specifically called out as the exception to the rule by both Mr. Skip Williams during the 3.5 era and more currently by Mr. Jason Bulmhan of Paizo.


Pin down feat. That's something relevant.


huh?


I was in a hurry, and Komoda, you had that avatar for a really long time, and now you change it... It's weird to me.

Anyways

pin down wrote:

Benefits

Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.

so, I can just withdraw or move again, right? It was 'prevented', so it never happened, right? Pretty useless feat...

151 to 200 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.