BigNorseWolf:
The things which are actions are very clearly enumerated in the rules. (I quoted them above).
They are not, and you did not. A-->B does not mean that not A--->Not B
It's also stated in at least 2 places that "actions" provoke, including one that specifically states that an enemy must take an action in order to provoke an attack of opportunity.
It does not say that. It says that actions provoke. That does not mean that only actions provoke.
Thats IF you ignore movement being defined as an action. There are non move action movements *(charge), and there are move action non movements (sheathing a weapon).
It honestly takes a very loose reading, and a bit of convoluted logic, to force the rules to say otherwise.
You are leaving a square. You are not taking preventative measures to keep your guard up. You get whacked. Reading the rules tea leaves deeper than that gets some weird results, depending on how you look at things which leads to...
It's so bad that you've ever assigning some of your weird logic to me (such as falling being a non-action, non-actions being actions, etc).
You cannot say that falling at the ground is not distracting and then tell someone else they have weird logic.
But I can see you're quite entrenched at this point.
I am not entrenched on the conclusion. I am entrenched on the position that your argument is bad because of the above. You cannot just look at the rules minutia one way, reach a conclussion, and then not afford other rules minutia the same courtesy.
Non voluntary movement TENDS not to provoke. Falling is non voluntary movement so it probably doesn't provoke. " is a reasonable rules interpretation drawing from available evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being hit in the head with a brick hurts.
An anvil is not a brick.
Therefore being hit in the head with an anvil doesn't hurt.That's not the logic I'm using. This is:
1) Only actions provoke.
OK, besides whether you are right about this or not, i don't like what you did there. You can't just quote out of context, answer that little segment and pretend you are right. I mean, I see your point, as i said in the first post, both sides have good arguments, and i understand why you think only actions provoke, but let's repeat what you just said, this time quoting a little bit more of what BigNorseWolf said:
It does not say that. It says that actions provoke. That does not mean that only actions provoke.
Being hit in the head with a brick hurts.
An anvil is not a brick.
Therefore being hit in the head with an anvil doesn't hurt.That's not the logic I'm using. This is:
1) Only actions provoke.
Do you see how ridiculous it sounds? Note that i did nothing but expanding the quote with the previous line BigNorseWolf wrote, i did not make it up, nor i took it out of context. Wen they wrote that brick thing, they were not talking about your logic behind "Falling does not provoke", but the logic behind "Only actions provoke", and then the firs thing you say is exactly that. Yeah, that's absurd.
A good point would have been "That's not the logic i'm using. This is a rulebook, everything that is a rule has to be stated, that's how rulebooks work. The book says "actions provoke", but it doesn't say a word about not actions. While in real world that wouldn't mean it does not happen, like stating a brick hurts doesn't mean an anvil desn't, in a rulebook a rule has to be written down. The rule for AoO's only talks about actions, you can't just assume non-actions also provoke more than you can assume fighters can cast spells because it doesn't say they can't."
And yes, you would have been right if you said that.
And now, because i'm Caothic Neutral, and because i love arguing, let's talk about actions. Specifically, Is falling not an action? I can recall i've heard at least 3 times "falling is a free action" (or, "as a free action, i fall", as i once heard from a levitating character that wanted to quickly get to the ground). EDIT: I found it, this is one of the times i've read it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce -or-Free-Movement
And even if it is not (which i doubt), just for the sake of discussion, the rules about AoO are placed BEFORE "action" is even defined as a game term, so we might just take the dictionary's definition of action, and "falling" sure is. Ok, that might be a little far fetched, but let me put it this way, let's assume for a second they wanted some non-action to provoke. if you were a game designer and had to rewrite this sentence:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
In a way that it includes both actions and non-actions, how would you do that? What would you replace the word actions with? Two kinds of what can provoke? Two kinds of things? it is not easy, if possible at all. That's why i say the word "action" might, just might be an actual use of the word as defined in the dictionary (where pretty much anything is an action) in this case, rather than a reference to a game term.
There will always be good arguments one way or the other, and therefore some people will play it as if it provoked, and some people might play it as if it doesn't, that's why i wan't this FAQ'ed ASAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously don't get why it is that movement from one axis (horizontal) provokes and the other does not (vertical). Create Mr. Pitt's interpretation is correct and leaves no awkward rules incursions.
The rules specifically state that moving out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter what sort of movement it is, whether it's intentional or not, if you're moving out of a square threatened by an enemy, it provokes. From the PRD:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square...Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
That's it. Them's the breaks. The general rule is that any sort of moving out of a threatened square will provoke an attack of opportunity against the target who threatens that square.
The only reason movement from subjects like Bull Rush or Drag don't provoke is because the rules specifically state they don't provoke unless they have the Greater feats. From the PRD:
An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
An enemy being moved by a drag does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Drag feat.
If you used the Move section of the Grapple rules, it defaults to the general rule that movement from a threatened square provokes, because there is no specific overriding rules text, as exampled above, anywhere in the Grapple rules.
This means that, unless there is a specific rule that states movement caused by falling does not provoke, Create Mr. Pitt's interpretation is the correct one. Otherwise, you're running into Schrodinger's gravity, where a creature is moving vertically, but is not actually moving vertically, which makes no sense. If you're moving, you provoke unless it says otherwise. It doesn't matter whether you're moving intentionally or not, movement is movement. (I also suggest you don't confuse this for something the likes of Dimension Door or Teleport; those are teleportation abilities, and are therefore not movement.)
|
Instead of calling it falling, why not call it what it really is, uncontrolled flying.
Flying through a threatened square provokes.
Attacks of Opportunity are generated.
as quoted up thread, if you cause a flying enemy to fall, it specifically says that they do not provoke.... So if we go by the falling rules in the flying section, they would not provoke
Somewhat surprisingly, I found that the "are you falling intentionally "-argument seems to be backed up by the rules.
If you're hit while flying with wings, you have to make a fly check to avoid "falling" (losing altitude). If you fail that check, you gain 10 ft of free movement, and that movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Attacked While Flying: (...) If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature’s movement.That makes me wonder... Is there anything stopping a flying creature from voluntarily failing a fly check, plummet to the ground with free movement without provoking AoOs, and then casting Feather Fall when they're 5 feet above the ground?
Instead of calling it falling, why not call it what it really is, uncontrolled flying.
Flying through a threatened square provokes.
Attacks of Opportunity are generated.as quoted up thread, if you cause a flying enemy to fall, it specifically says that they do not provoke.... So if we go by the falling rules in the flying section, they would not provoke
Somewhat surprisingly, I found that the "are you falling intentionally "-argument seems to be backed up by the rules.
If you're hit while flying with wings, you have to make a fly check to avoid "falling" (losing altitude). If you fail that check, you gain 10 ft of free movement, and that movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Attacked While Flying: (...) If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature’s movement.That makes me wonder... Is there anything stopping a flying creature from voluntarily failing a fly check, plummet to the ground with free movement without provoking AoOs, and then casting Feather Fall when they're 5 feet above the ground?
That section only applies if you fail the DC 10 fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude; nothing else. That is a specific application contrary to a general rule that movement provokes.
If you were hit by an effect that made you lose your ability to fly (say, you were affected by a Fly spell, and it was suppressed by an Anti-Magic Field), you would still provoke for any descent you would take, because your falling or "altitude lost" wasn't by failing a DC 10 fly check via taking damage, it was because an Anti-Magic Field suppressed your flight.
Notice how it doesn't say "fall 10 feet." Although it's functionally the same, you're essentially saying a Fireball spell and a Fireball SLA are the same thing. They're not, and they're classified separately for a reason.
@ Byakko: There are subjects that require you to take actions without actually taking actions. The 5-foot step, nocking an arrow to fire with a bow, delaying, these are all things that are activities that can (or are required to) be taken, but aren't listed as actions. The funny thing is, the 5-foot step would actually provoke, as it's movement that's not an action, except the only reason it doesn't is because it says so.
Also, the notion that an action must be spent in order for movement to provoke is absurd. Movement in and of itself isn't (always) an action. If I had an ability that allows me to instantly take a Move Action by spending X resource, which isn't an action to do, the argument that it doesn't provoke because an action isn't taken is absurd; and I've said previously, the only reason movement caused from maneuvers like Drag or Bull Rush does not provoke is because there is specific text saying it doesn't unless you possess the relevant feats. Otherwise? It provokes, as normal. Hell, I could Grapple someone, take the Move activity, and both myself and the target I have Grappled would provoke as if moving, even though the target that's moving with me is taking no action on his behalf.
This is like saying Quickened Spells don't provoke because they're a Swift Action to cast instead of whatever action they are normally. That's incorrect. They don't provoke because they specifically say they don't provoke, because the general rule is spellcasting, of any kind, provokes.
Again, if you can't produce the proof that falling in and of itself, specifically says it does not provoke, then you're left with an interpretation where a character is moving (which provokes) and yet not moving (which doesn't provoke), with nothing to supersede the general rule that moving provokes.
EDIT: Looks like i've been ninja'd. Still, i'll leave what i wrote.
Instead of calling it falling, why not call it what it really is, uncontrolled flying.
Flying through a threatened square provokes.
Attacks of Opportunity are generated.as quoted up thread, if you cause a flying enemy to fall, it specifically says that they do not provoke.... So if we go by the falling rules in the flying section, they would not provoke
Somewhat surprisingly, I found that the "are you falling intentionally "-argument seems to be backed up by the rules.
If you're hit while flying with wings, you have to make a fly check to avoid "falling" (losing altitude). If you fail that check, you gain 10 ft of free movement, and that movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Attacked While Flying: (...) If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature’s movement.That makes me wonder... Is there anything stopping a flying creature from voluntarily failing a fly check, plummet to the ground with free movement without provoking AoOs, and then casting Feather Fall when they're 5 feet above the ground?
Keep in mind that the quoted rules only mention the loss of altitude because of damaged wings, it would not apply if, let's say, you cast "Deep Slumber" on a flying creature. Maybe it will provoke, maybe it won't, but if it doesn't, it won't be because of that line.
Also, it's worth mentioning that, yet again, the rulebook has to specifically point out that tis specific kind of involuntary movement doesn't provoke. That doesn't automaticly mean that they do unles stated otherwise, but makes me wonder, if that is not the case, wouldn't it have been easier to point it out in the general rules for AoO's, istead of pointing it out in every single case? I mean, just add "Only movement willingly performed by the creature provokes." or somethinh like that. I wonder why they didn't.