Francis Kunkel's page

so here is a question, if someone provokes an AoO by moving through a space you do threaten, (spike gauntlet, Imp unarmed strike, etc) can you then attack him with the whip? and then, do you provoke an AoO in turn?

1. So just to clarify, a fighter with a reach weapon threatens all X...
OXXXO
XOOOX
XOFOX
XOOOX
OXXXO
and concequently does not get an AoO if an opponent approaches his diagonal.
2. Cool, you guys are awesome! Thank you so much for the quick answer!
3. I don't really understand. If a mage took a five foot step back, a fighter with a reach weapon threatening that mage would only get to step up 5' to maintain threat, right?

e.g. if F=Fighter O=blank spot M=Mage
Start -> mage's 5' step -> step up

w/reach weapon
FOM -> FOOM ->FOM
vs
w/o Reach weapon
FM -> FOM ->FM

Still only a 5' step?

LOL, nice.

1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
2. The wording on Stand still uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
3. The wording on Step up uses adjacent, so did you specifically leave out reach weapons?
Relevant Threads Stand Still and Step Up
These two threads have provided ideas, suggestions, and an almost general consensus with regards to houseruling these situations. Also, I realize what I would do in my games with regards to Rule Number Zero (GM Discretion). However, I do enjoy playing the game as a PC, and I am therefore not the GM all the time, and happen to like reach weapons as well as any other type of weapon. I would love to be able to point out an official ruling (even if that is "figure it out yourself") to players and GM's alike. Please help me.
Very Respectfully,
Frank

Thank you sir!
*Salute*

For W E Ray and Moon Glum

Ok so now my question is a rogue with SA with a sap and the bleed talent?

LOL @ The Black Bard
+5 Shocking Burst x4 crit

@ Stabbittydoom- Ah... that must have been it, poisons. Man, I was going crazy trying to find that in the magic, combat, and equipment sections.
@ Mok- I agree that the non threatening qualities should not be changed.
@ Name Violation- I always liked to think of armor like DR...
@ The Black Bard- by complications, to you mean situations where the rules get wonky, or do you mean challenging situations for the characters? And do you let them make touch attacks with energy weapons, or do you just apply the damage during weapon usages that would still touch?

Now I could not find this, but I thought I read somewhere once that a weapon must damage the opponent for the special ability to take affect. Anyone else read that anywhere or know where to look? And you (Ravingdork) are saying you rule that with a successful attack the fire still damages, but the normal damage does not? I am just not quite sure what you mean. "to assume makes... out of you and me" :-)

If a person was weilding a +1 flaming whip, then the +1 portion should be non lethel, (dealing the same type of damage as the whip). However, I am wondering if it still does not harm enemies with +1 Armor bonus or a Nat armor bonus of +3. The flaming is fire damage and should cause harm to those enemies, right? And does it still not threaten anywhere? Also, if a guy with flaming whips was attacking me, I would not think to gain an AoO off of him...and on another random note, power attack with a whip? Thoughts, concerns, comments?

Sooooooo.... are you asking the question stated in the topic? because (although I have been known to be blind) I can't find a question in the post. But, to answer the topic question, no, and here is why.

At 2nd level, an incantatrix gains the ability to apply any metamagic feat she possesses (except Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Quicken Spell) to a spell being cast by a willing allied spellcaster. The caster need not prepare the spell in metamagic form or in a higher-level spell slot; the incantatrix simply modifies the spell during the casting.

so, it doesn't get prepared as one

“Modified spell level” is the level of the spell slot that the spell would occupy if it were prepared with the metamagic feat applied.

"would occupy if" means it doesn't as well.

RAW doesn't allow any weapon to use this feat. So no weapon based enhancement bonus to your attempt regardless of what you wield.

I am not sure what you mean, could you please elaborate? Do you mean that because it is a generic CM, you aren't using the weapon you threaten with that caused the AoO? I am just a little confused. I was just referring to the fact that because a Generic Reach Weapon (GRW) does not threaten adjacent to you, if you had this feat, you could not use it with a GRW according to RAW.

I don't have any problem with a pole arm user to use this feat if someone moves in a manner as described. But most polearm users I know already threaten adjacenet with something (improved unarmed strike, armor spikes, spike guantlet etc.) So its a non issue for them.

Do armor spikes allow AoO? I didn't think they did, but I have been known to be mistaken. The question I ask is should a GRW user have to equip special equipment to use this feat? (AoO up close for GRW, sure, but to not be able to at least stop them in threatened squares?)Why does RAW kinda put a hamper on reach weapons? or is this an oversight with unintended consequences.

Thanks for the prompt reply :-) kinda what I figured, just wanted to double check....assumptions can get you into trouble.

@ DM_Blake
Then I have a question for you good sir. Then in this scenario of
[][][]H
A[][][]
[][][][]
P []B[]
When H orc moves from his current position, to the diagonal between A & B, do you (DM_Blake) allow P to take an AoO? (Even though P doesn't threaten either of the squares H is moving through) I am just wondering, because I do like to work with RAW... (if you add a houserule or two, where do you stop adding them, and then aren't you just playing a different game?) but in RAW for a GRW to have a gaping hole in the AoO circle just bothers me a little, although I definitely agree mathematically the reach makes perfect sense RAW...darn you tricky letter M. :-)
From my gaming table, "...oh hexes... why couldn't we have just swapped to hexes?..."

Here is the thread where my question is now posted in regards to stand still feat.
Stand Still?

For those of you just joining this conversation, here is my original question.

Original Step up with a reach weapon thread

So here's another can o' worms. Stand still with a reach weapon...
PHB p 134 "when a foe provokes an AoO due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a CM check as your AoO. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an AoO."
RAW doesn't allow reach weapons to use this feat? Another accidental injustice against reach weapons? Or does once again a simple house ruling solve the spirit of the rule?

First, thank you all, very insightful stuff.
Second,

2. "awesome... I move away." is illegal. This player alredy used a 5-foot move this round, and you cannot move in the same round that you use a 5-foot move. Therefore, he cannot "move away" and he cannot provoke that AoO via movement.

Touche, my bad. You are correct, although I knew that, I was so blinded by the injustice of step up, I momentarily had a lapse in judgment.

Okay, so we have now adressed ways to deal with closing opponents. So what about the mage you threaten that takes a five foot step away from you. 2 fighers, both have step up. Fighter A has a reach weapon. Figter B has a non reach weapon. The mage moves away from Fighter A. according to RAW he stands there like a dummy. The mage moves away from Fighter B and he steps up, whacking the foolish casting wizard who allowed him to get to close. So my questions to all of you are, do you believe that this is what the game makers intended? or was this a silly situation, and both fighters should have gotten to step up? or do you believe that reach weapons have an advantage in game play and this is some crazy way to balance it? (this last question is loaded, so watch it) ;-)

First, thank you for response, I wasn't sure anyone would :-)

Not all feats are meant to be used in all situations. Most feats are meant to address specific issues.

I agree.

WITHOUT Step Up

Francis wrote:

a mage can move towards or away from you and blast your face off w/o consequence.

as long as he is not stupid enough to move directly next to you.

I disagree, with or without step up, if you are wielding a weapon with reach and move to attack and therefore threaten the wizard during his turn, the wizard can 5' step right up next to you and cast on his turn. Your reach weapon cannot attack the space next to you, and RAW step up does not allow you to move back to threaten him. Even if he 5' steps away from you RAW step up does not allow you to follow him.

Step Up seems to be one of those (feats).I don't think it's was meant to mesh with reach weapons, which already give you a 5' comfort zone and specific advantages.

I believe step up was designed to reward tactical fighters (with or without reach weapons, regardless) that spent a feat and closed the distance to a mage/bowman with a way to not just stand there with a silly look on their face while the mage/bowman just steps back and casts/shoots them in the face.

Maybe I am wrong and the intent specifically is for weapons without reach, but I would like to hear the rationale from the game designers. Or if someone else can give me an explanation I would be satisfied as well. Or if the majority of folk believe as I do, I might be able to make a case to my DM :-)

Ok so according to the step up feat p135 PHB, "whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5' step away from you, you may also make a 5' step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you.....total movement" Although this is a fantastic feat for staying near to bow fighters and magic users with a non-reach weapon, what is the implication with regards to a reach weapon? you can't use this feat RAW (rules as written).

One of the problems with this feat RAW is that if you have a reach weapon, a mage can move towards or away from you and blast your face off w/o consequence.

Player: I move to threaten the mage.
GM: the mage takes a 5' step forward/back and...
Player: wait! I use my step up with my generic reach weapon (GRW)to threaten the mage. Not this time fiendish caster! MWAHHAHAHA
GM: you can't, read the feat.
Player: mumblemumblemumble...adjacent...mumblemumble...son of a...
GM: and hits you with a maximized empowered lightning bolt.
player: awww maaaannn...

A non reach fighter can use this ability against a reach fighter to horrible concequence.

GM: the fighter takes a 5' step towards you and swings his...
Player: wait! I use step up and move backwards...
GM: you can't. And the fighter hits you for 18 points. now its your turn.
Player: I take a 5' step back with my GRW and wallup...
GM: Wait! the fighter uses step up and moves with you.
Player: so you are telling me I can't even attack him this round...
GM: yes.
Player: awesome... I move away.
GM: ok the fighter gets an attack of opportunity... and you take 13 points of damage.

Now IF I were the DM, I believe the spirit of this feat is "whenever an enemy you threaten takes a 5' step to a square you do not threaten, you may also make a 5' step as an immediate action so long as you end up threatening the foe that triggered this ability"

now I can hit that amazing mage that is standing right in front of me! and fights with non-reach fighters get pretty crazy tactically with move vs countermove and 5' step vs 5' step
The reason I post this is because my DM is a rules letter lawyer alighnment LN and I am a rules spirit lawyer alignment LG. So unless I can get official backing for the spirit of the law, no go in his games. Please help PFRPG officials