Yes, you can put your arm through the hole and shoot a Fireball, but don't go complaining if you lose your hand to a Trap.
Search Posts
On a side note, this reminds me of the story of a Barbarian in an old campaign of ours. We were in a tough battle getting slaughtered and the Barbarian had just got hit really hard but didn't fall because he was raging. He would have rather falled unconscious than staying up and getting risk getting hit again and die, so someone reminds him he could turn off the rage with a will save, which he did. The ones remaining up manage to win the fight, but after he woke up everybody was like "No way, you're no barbarian" and he said he was no paladin so it was ok, that's when we all looked at the GM and agreed that the barbarian Gods wouldn't stand for it either and cursed him making him lose his barbarian powers, until he could atone for his "sins".
How would PCs determine how injured an enemy is during combat? A normal human would use the magic of "common sense" So I guess the real question is, how do you know if you're human or just a machine that thinks it's human.
What happend if tarrasque get split into 2? New Game +
The definiton of Enemies and Allies should be irrelevant, since anybody can hit a friend in the face if they so desire (a Flat-Footed friend at that). What should matter are what spells and abilities affect every creature in the area, regardless of you considering them friend or foe, and what spells allow you to chose who you can target and who you can exclude. If the creature is a Ally or an Enemy, that's entirely up to you. Having said that, even though a strick readig of the rules would allow you to AoO an ally, you should also be able to understand that the mechanics behind AoO make them a form of retaliation in response to some actions, and using them in a clever way to gain extra actions is not what they were intended for. So, if you're playing "Game the System", you WIN! If you're playing "The Game as the Devs alegendly intended to", it would be expected of you to try not to do such a thing.
I'm pretty sure it can't be as bad as beeing Nauseated.
"Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks?" Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Stirges are a foot long, so about the size of a cat. How many cats can cover you? Like alot, right? 20 or 30 cats? For non-gamebreaking purposes I would go with Nefreet and say 4 per square. Remember, if anybody asks why, you can always say "Magic".
Think of it this way, most weapons do only one type of damage, those that do more than one normaly don´t doit for free, they either do less damage or have some other drawback to compensate, compared to one damage type weapons. If you want the spear to do slashing damage or use it as a staff that has reach, there should be some drawback to compensate. The Monk, specifically, was designed with a limited weapon selection, he doesn´t naturally have access to any reach weapons. For him, to have this flexibility of using a weapons as he wishes would be even more meaningfull than to a Fighter. In the game world, you can´t use a spear to do slashing damage no more than you can use a sword to smash rocks.
In my opinion: Mirror Image
So Mirror Image works only on "you" and provides a Miss Chance ALOT better than Displacement or Invisibility, but it has charges, and you can still be targeted normaly by rogues sneak attacks. Blur
Blur, also a 2nd level spell, provides a Miss Chance of only 20%, but it doesn't have charges and will last the whole combat, and you can still be targeted normaly but rogues can't sneak attack you, because you have concealment. Invisibility
Invisibility, another 2nd level spell, provides total concealment, so it's protection is better than even Displacement with 50% Miss Chance and you don't even provoke AoO, but it will go away as soon as you attack. Displacement
Displacement probably works as if you had 1 Mirror Image next to you all the time, one that doesn't run out of charges, so until the spell ends, your enemies will chose between attacking you or your image, 50%, and unlike Invisibility, you can attack back. You still provoke AoO normaly and can be sneak attacked normaly. Blink
Blink transports you to the ethereal plane, so you're not concealed by an illusion, you are really not there, but when you do come back, enemies can see you just fine, so you still provoke AoO and can receive sneak attacks. If the enemy can see in the ethereal plane, then the Miss Chance is only 20%, and there are some other peculiarities... Greater Invisibility
A higher level spell, but provides a great Miss Chance, you don't provoke AoO and enemies may have alot of trouble to find you while you can attack for 7+ rounds. Mirror Image + Blur
Kinda crazy, seeing Miss Chance should not stack (personaly, I think it should Cap at 50% for one source, as concealment, but that's just me). If it doesn't stack, it would be just like you only had Mirror Image On, until the charges run out, then switch to Blur. If they do stack, then all images would have their own Blur, so roll for Blur first, then use your Mirror Images. Mirror Image + Displacement If it doesn't stack, then use your Mirror Images until there's only 1 left, at which point that last one won't be discharged, until Displacement ends. If it does stack, then I think it would be like if you had 1d4 + 2 images, 1 which doesn't get discharged if hit. Mirror Image + Invisibility Again, weird. If you are invisible, so are the images, and invisible ilusions do nothing for you. Mirror Image + Blink
HaHA! Miss Chance does't stack, but in this situation it would actually make sense. Roll for the Mirror Images normaly, and then roll again to see if you (and your images) are in the ethereal plane or not. Technically, by RAW, Mirror Images are not Miss Chance. Invisibility + Blink
By RAW, these don't stack, because it's all Miss Chance, but it would make sense to stack too, to a total of 60% combined Miss Chance.(Part of the Miss Chance from Blink is already from Concealment, only 20% from the etherealness should stack with the 50% from the Concealment) Mirror Image + Blur + Blink
You've got it all, the Mirror Images, the Concealment and the Etherealness. You can still be targeted and provoke AoO, but I see no way to keep the visible illusions and stay invisible among them. Eventually the enemy would figure it out to never strike the images, as they Pin-point you and you are never one of them.
You could use the magic of the dices to determine your success.
You could interpret it as something amorphic, with no definite shape (but not as far as a shapeshifter).
I think he meant "you didn't have to reference Diablo in this analogy because PF has this concept too."And you realize a luck stone is not an Ioun stone right?In doubt, doit like Diablo and shove it in your forehead.You realize that's already thing, right? We can implant Ioun Stones into our bodies. Nah, the reference was intentional, because Diablo's "Lucky Stone" has a shape and size like a dagger.
In doubt, doit like Diablo and shove it in your forehead.
By RAW, if you could somehow turn the Fireball in to severall rays, and make a target roll for each target that could be hit in the Fireball area, and if you meet the Sneak Attack requirements, then you should be able to sneak attack at least one target (not sure if you can sneak attack several different targets with a scorching ray like spell). Now, if you just want to use a regular Fireball to Sneak Attack, I think you can make a target roll to hit THE Fireball at the precise point, and if you meet all the requirements for a Sneak Attack, then you would be able to apply the sneak attack damage to that one target, but not for all the other targets in the area of the spell. Also, if the primary target has spell resistance, since you're not "detonating" the Fireball at an empty point in space, if the Fireball does't passes his Spell Resistance, then the entire Fireball should disappear, consumed before it detonates. My 2c.
Specifically due to the troll nature of this question, I'm hesitant to answer.
You can wear several AoMF, but only the first one you put on will work. If you or someone else rips-off the one that's working, I imagine you would need a move action to "put on" the other one you want to use now. If you pay x1.5 the price of the enchant to place a 2nd enchant on the same amulet you're using, then you would only need to use that one to have both enchants working at the same time, BUT, since it's the "same enchant", for example, AoMF +5 & AoMF +4(+1 & +3 of Speed), I'm guessing by RAW they would not stack since they are both AoMF, BUT, since it should be ok to stack an AoMF with a Frost Frist Amulet, I personally would see no problem in stacking two AoMF enchants on the same amulet, as long as the overall stacked attack doesn't exceed +10 (and, of course, the enhancement bonus don't stack). If you paid x2 the price of the enchant, then you can use both at the same time, but it would follow the same stacking rules as above.
I'd just like to say we should review not only this, but all the rules in the game to see how they are affected by pregnancy.
Not sure about a Death Ray, but I'm pretty sure most DMs will allow you to make a World Enlarger.
So, we're playing this adventure and the DM puts this flesh golem made of even parts with 6 arms using 2 bows. The fight stats but the golem is is only using 4 of his arms, so we ask "why does he has 6 arms?". The DM checks the golem's stats to see if he missed anything and also confused says "beats me", and so I raise raise my two hands, smile, and make a heart sign.
Honestly people, I really have my own beliefs about this, but if the same comments are cycling around 24/7, it becomes pointless to prove anything. As it is, a person with the last comment will "win" the argument. The only way to win here is to step back, take a good look at yourself and this huge pile of @#$*&!%, and realize it's a waste of time to discuss like this about something so infimus. #1 Most Important Thing of The Game: Have Fun (Not at the expense of the fun of others.) It's just a game. We're not Titans reshaping the Universe. The only people you really have to convince of your opinion are the ones siting at your table, and if you can't come to an agreement, toss a coin or something. Anybody who "wins" a thread like "this", loses as a human being.
Alex, you can't prove the OP is wrong, and neither can they prove you're wrong, but they won't even acknowledge the possibility, so continuing is just a waste of time. Get what's usefull to you from the discussion, and that's it.
I'd just like to say I too think you can fly with a Fly spell while paralized, that is what sounds most logial to me, anyway. However, I can also understand if the Devs decide to rule that paralyzing effecst also prevent any sort of movement, including supernatural flying. After all, that seems to be the purpose of such conditions. However again, if we interpret supernatural flight as a peculiar exception to a paralyzing effect, I don't find that too broken and think this makes the game more interresting.
If you can use the fly spell to dislocate yourself from the ground, can you apply the same force against another creature and dislocate yourself from it at the same speed, or push the other creature? Just saying, "fly", as in with no wings, defying the laws of physics, is a bag of worms you don't wanna mess with.
You said it, m8. You guys are completly right, I'm bow backing you guys 100%. I was on lots of drugs when I wrote my first post.
Oook, so, if the mages casts mirror image, I got like 1 in 5 chance of hitting the real one, but if he then casts invisibility, making himself and all the illusionary copies invisible and stands on the same place, now I got 1 in 2 chances of hitting him. So, what you are saying is that, hacking at nothing is easier than hacking at fake illusions, which I know that are fake, but somehow I'm obligated to hack at the illusions, I just can't hack at the square as it it had nothing, as if the foe were invisible, but what I can do is close my eyes and effectivelly make him invisible (along with everything else) and THEN I can hack at the square as if there's nothing in it, is that right? Ok then, you guys are totally right. Let's continue to hack at those illusions, and pray they don't cast the spell again.
You guys realize how insane it is to say you'll have a higher chance to hit the foe by closing your eyes, right?
Ok then, do what the players want, and when they realize it's not fun, Then you propose playing with weaker characters for a bigger challenge.
He wants reach. Give it to him. Let him be happy with his character.
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.This is actually completely incorrect. Mirror image is not concealment, it has a completely different effect. What you're describing goes against the text of mirror image itself. The spell description is almost irrelevant. If you close your eyes, you can ignore the spell. I'm just saying you can ignore the spell with your eyes open too. All the spell does is to create an illusion on that square that makes it hard to determine where the real foe is. It would be just like trying to hit a foe with invilibility that you have pinpointed. No need to close your eyes.
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.
So, since it seems nobody wants to discuss this thing anymore, I'm gonna lay down all the questions about this I wish the Devs would answer: #Q1. When a Tiny or smaller creature uses a move action to move into an enemy occupied square, does that provokes 2 AoO, one for leaving a threatened square and another for moving into and enemy occupied square, or are these 2 AoO the same one, the regular one provoked by leaving a threatened square?
#Q2. Can a Tiny or smaller creature use a 5-foot step to move into an enemy occupied square, and would that provoke an AoO?
#Q3. If a Tiny or smaller creature moves into an square occupied by another Tiny or smaller enemy creature with reach 0, will the invaded creature be able to AoO the invading creature even though it has reach 0, or will it only be eligible to the AoO if it's wielding a reach weapon? If the invaded creature can perform the AoO with reach 0, does the AoO happens after the invading creature has alredy moved inside the invaded creature square?
(Btw, with the present rules, if a Cat moves into the square of a rat, the rat get's to make an AoO on the Cat, which doesn't make sense. The Cat should have a reach bigger than the rat, so it should be the rat the one provoking an AoO from the Cat when it tries to attack the Cat. So, Houserule: Creatures with the same reach don't provoke AoO from each other when they approach to attack on melee. Only creatures with bigger reach get to AoO other creature with smaller reach than it's own when they try to approach to attack it.) #Q4. Is "moving into" an enemy occupied square a specific action or can it be done as just a part of regular movement?
#Q5. When a creature 3 sizes larger then it's enemy moves through the enemy's occupied square, does that also provokes 2 AoO or only 1, for leaving a threatened square?
#Q6. Can a Tiny or smaller creature teleport into and enemy occupied square, and would that provoke an AoO?
#Q7. Can you use Accrobatics to avoid the AoO for moving into an enemy occupied square? What if you move into with a 5-foot step, can you use Accrobatics then? What's the Accrobatics DC?
#Q8. When a creature 3 sizes larger or smaller than the other moves through the enemy creature occupied square, can they use Accrobatics to avoid the AoO for moving through? What would be Accrobatics DC?
Helpfull Article: Kobold Press: Size Matters (by Skip Williams) Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) by Skip Williams In the end, the main reason why the AoO for moving into is just a reminder of the AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square, and as such can be avoided by a 5-foot step, is that, otherwise, anybody fighing a Tiny or smaller creature would be able to just take a 5-foot step to get out of it's reach, which would force the Tiny creature to take another 5-foot step into the square it moved to, and provoke another AoO, every round. It's unbalanced, unfair and doesn't make sense.
I think, in PF, a Medium creature can't enter the square of a Gargantuan creature. A Gargantuan creature can move over/through and past a Medium creature, but can't stop over it (unless it has some special ability to crush them). A Medium creature can move adjacent to a Gargantuan creature and Grapple it, provoking 2 Aoo. Even Grappling, they'll occupy different squares. The only ones that can move in and actually stay inside another creature's square are Tiny and smaller creatures.
Btw, this was quoted from the movement section of the rules. Kinda implies it's just movement. Questioning the "The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so." affirmative is the same as questioning if "Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures." also provokes an AoO different from one for leaving a threatened square. Honestly, I think people are trying to read too much into this. It's like reading "If you get into water, you get wet." and then start questioning "What do they mean by wet? If it's a woman, does she get's horny and ..." Even though it isn't 100% clear, personally I'm 99% sure "moving into" is just regular movement, so only 1 AoO should happen. NOW, if a Tiny or smaller creater can make a 5-foot step to not provoke one, I'm not so sure, because a 5-foot step is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig stretch for a creature the size of an ant.
In the end, a Tiny creature moving into a square of a Large creature is absolutely no different from a Medium creature moving close to a Gargantuan creature to attack. The only difference is the relative size of the surrounding trees. I see 2 reasons as to why we have these special rules for Tiny or smaller creatures. First, the game was designed mostly for Medium creatures (players) fighting Medium or larger creatures, so, to make things simple, the basic space/distance unit is the one square you occupy. The second is that Medium creature's miniatures are already small. If we were to use even smaller miniatures for tiny and smaller creatures and had to divide the battle grid into even smaller squares for them, either we would end up with miniatues smaller than ants, or, if we were to enlarge Diminutive creatures's miniatures so we could manipulate them, we would end up with "miniatures" the size of a house for Large creatures. The Battlegrid is already smaller than reality. It isn't compatible with creatures smaller than the miniatures we use (unless you like playing with grains of sand). In order to make Tiny and Smaller creatures compatible with the size of the battlegrid we use, the rules allow them to occupy the same squares as other creatures, for simplicity. Otherwise, it would seem weird that they can attack from "so far away" beyond their reach, but in the end they behave just like any other smaller creature moving close to a larger creature to attack. Intepreting the AoO for moving into as a regular AoO for leaving a threatened square is the only/best interpretation to make the rules work. Otherwise, a Tiny creature would provoke 3 AoO if it moved from 10ft way into an enemy occupied square and tryied to grapple it.
Psionics Rulez! In Dark Sun 2e, the Evil Wizards were the reason the world was destroyed, turning into a huge desert, all the magic consumed all the surounding energy leaving the world dry. Psionis would produce their powers from their own energy, and all Wizards are now hunted down. Gota love Dark Sun ^^. Plus, I never liked the vancian system. "Can't cast a fireball today." "Dude, why not? Out of juice?" "Nah, I got the juice, just can't use it for a fireball." "Dude, why not? You've just casted one." "Yeah, but now I can't. Only tomorow, after I read it again" "DUDE, you read this stuff every day! Aren't you supposed to be smart?" "... #%@*!" "So, what can you cast?" "Explosive Runes" "Alright, let's hope that Direbear is actually a druid and knows how to read."
Back on the subject, "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance. I've tried to think of an example where a 5-foot step would provoke an AoO, but it seems that's just no possible, because AoO don't just happen, they only happen in response to specific triggers within an oponent's melee reach (cast a spell, reload a crossbow, ranged attacks), and a 5-foot step simply isn't a trigger for any AoO, unless someone has a specific ability that allows otherwise. What I mean is, "Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity" means the exact same thing as "Taking this 5-foot step doesn't provokes an attack of opportunity". You know what else Never provoes an AoO? A melee attack, activating a magic item, channel energy, drawing a weapon, all of these actions don't provoke AoO, never have and never will, unless the oponent has an ability that specifically says otherwise. So, yeah, basically, when they say "Never", all they really mean is "Doesn't". So, if you can use a 5-foot step to move into an occupied square, that should provoke an AoO, because it specifically says so. (unless...)
Raise Dead!
Voldemort? Unstoppable? Voldemort x Sniper Rifle: "Avada.." BANG!
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during or after a full-round action." If you choose to take your 5-foot step during the casting of a full round spell or during a full attack to move close to a barbarian with "Come and Get me", would that mean neither the casting of the spell nor any attacks during the full attack would provoke any AoO, since it's all one "action" (full round action + 5-foot step)? Probably not, it should provoke AoO anyway, but this is the only other example I can think of where a 5-foot step could provoke an AoO unrelated to movement.
He's saying that Action ≠ Event. Example: Action: Fire an Arrow (Ranged Attack) AoO: Happens before the Arrow finishes beeing fired Event. Outcome #1: The AoO doesn't kill the subject and the "Fire an Arrow" event happens. Outcome #2: The AoO kills the subject and the "Fire an Arrow" event never happes (well, it did start to happen, but wasn't concluded). I don't like saying tha AoO happen before their triggering Actions, or Events, it makes it sounds like everybody is a Jedi and uses the force interrupt attacks that haven't even happen. It sounds like a Time Paradox, how can you take an action to stop something if the action you want to stop hasn't even began to happen yet? To me, the key word is interrupt, which indicates the AoO happen generally during the Action or Event. I think some Dev wrote something like "AoO happen after the actions that triggered them began to happen, but before they are resolved". Anyway, the important thing is that, in the initiative order, we resolve the AoO before we resolve the Actions that triggered them, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Tribune, I'd appreciate if you would stop asking others to simply "stop debating" and stop saying "your point is wrong", specially in a situation where the point is undetermined by the rules. Even if, in the future, you happen to be right, there's no need to be a @#%* while trying to stop others from proving otherwise, simply by smashing the "You're wrong" button. Please, try to contribute with someting to help prove your point, instead of just saying "the rules are clear". We're not computers, computers don't question the rules of the programs that runs them, we do. People have always questioned how to do things outside the scope of the written rules. I thought what we were trying to do here is determined if the AoO for moving into an occupied square is independent or if it's the same one for moving out of a threatened square, determined that by using other indirect rules (like acrobatics, but that wasn't enough to determine it) Even if there was't any quote in the acrobatic rules to solve this issue, as they say "where there's smoke, there's fire". Ozzy did have a point in thinking that moving through could be related to moving into, he was half way there. In the end, the acrobatics rules serve as an indication as to what moving into might be, but nothing more. Still, and indication is better than nothing.
Well, if you can physically occupy the same square of a Gelatinous Cube, it should not be a problem to teleport into one, it would be the same principle as teleporting into a space full of air, gas, water, lava, a swarm, or anything else that doesn't physically prevents you from sharing that space, different from a stone wall for example, or a body of water with so much salt or sand in it that you wound't even sink on it, you just stand over it. And Teleporting into any space should not provoke an AoO, I mean how could it? It's instantaneous, and the teleporting action probably happens out of reach, you can't interrupt that, unless you have that feat that allows you to do so after "they" teleport.
Another example, imagine there's a monster with a gaze attack that can attack anybody who comes within 5ft of it as an extra AoO. You use a 5-foot step to get adjacent to this moster. The same action, the 5-foot step, should provoke 2 AoO from this moster, one for moving and another thanks to it's special gaze power, but since taking a 5-foot step never provokes an AoO, would that deny both AoO or just the one for movement? What I'm actually hoping for here is if somebody can find a quote clarifying if the 5-foot step only protect against AoO from movement out of threatened areas. What I don't agree with is anyone who claims to know definitively otherwise. Me too.
Why is the acrobatics DC +5 higher to avoid the AoO for entering compared to just moving through a threatened area? If it's the same AoO, performed in the adjacent square, then why are the DCs different? The Rules Lawyers will say "We don't know why the DC is +5, we can only assume why. All we do know is that it is." Although your reasoning makes sense, it won't be enough to clear this issue, since it's based on a assumption. Furthermore, I don't think Tumbling through an enemy square has "anything" to do with moving into an enemy square and staying there. Anybody can move Through, and moving into is a special move reserved only to very small creatures. Just because moving into is different from moving around, it doesn't mean that it is the same as moving through. Moving into may be a different, 3rd type of movement.
Do we know for a fact that the 5-foot step property of Never provoking AoO is only related to movement? Even if it's not, I'm having a hard time picturing another type of AoO that can be triggered simply by taking a 5-foot step action.
Why is the acrobatics DC +5 higher to avoid the AoO for entering compared to just moving through a threatened area? If it's the same AoO, performed in the adjacent square, then why are the DCs different? I think we don't know if the tumble DC to move into a square is +5. We don't even know if we can use tumble to move into a square. We do know we can use tumble to move around or through a square, and that the DC to move through is +5 hither, probably because you literraly need to pass through the square where there's an enemy on it. What I'm saying is, the DC +5 to tumble through an enemy square doesn't necessarily means that moving through is the same thing as moving into. It may just mean that moving through is harder than moving around it. Maybe, if all a Tiny creature wants to do is move into an occupied square just to attack, just like a Medium creature wants to move close enough to a Huge Dragon to attack it, maybe the DC to move into doesn't need the +5.
I thought one of the things we were debating is if the AoO for moving into an occupied square is nothing more than the same AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square. Initially, I thought they were not the same, since even a creature with reach 0 (no threatening area) is entitle to an AoO if somebody moves into their square. A creature with reach 0 simply can't AoO anyone for moving, because these AoO should happen before the creatures have entered the square, beyond the creature's reach. Since even creatures with 0 are entitle to an AoO if someone enters their square, it leads me to conclude that these AoO must be of some different type, one that happens already inside the same square, different from regular AoO for moving out of threatening areas. Then, Skip confirmed that both AoO, "moving into an occupied square" and "moving out of a threatened square" are the same:
When the little creature enters a space that a foe of Medium size occupies, the gets an attack of opportunity when the Tiny creature leaves the adjacent square to enter the Medium creature’s space, thanks to its 5-foot reach" Also, Skip says you can tumble to avoid this AoO. Normaly you can't use tumble to avoid just any type of AoO, just AoO from moving out of threatened areas. This also leads me to believe that the AoO for moving into an occupied square is indeed a regular AoO for moving out of a threatened area. And, I did say that before too, unfortunally Skip didn't mention anything about 5 foot steps in this situation. Of course, this isn't enough to prove anything RAW, but through these I have come to a better understanding of how I would like this to be ruled in my home games. Also, I've realized something simple: Two creatures with the same reach don't provoke AoO from one another when they move close to each other just enough to strike. Only creatures with greater reach get to AoO others that are trying to move close enough to attack it. Since in the end nobody really occupies the same space, a Tiny creature moving into the square of a Medium creature to attack is no different from a Medium creature moving close enough to attack a Huge creature, it provoes an AoO, which you may be able to avoid with tumble.
I posted these links back in Here: Post #195 It was previously pointed out in an older thread by DM Blake,Here. Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) by Skip Williams If you're a whole lot bigger or smaller than your foe, you can move through and even stop in the foe's space (see Player's Handbook page 148); you also can do so if you're size Fine, Diminutive, or Small. Entering a foe's space normally provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe, but if you use the Tumble skill to enter the space, you don't provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe if you make your skill check.
Word to the GM: Kill the Mount.
I did find out that, in D&D 3.5, Skip Williams said the AoO for moving into an occupied square is indeed the same one for leaving a threatened square, but I didn't get any replies on this find.
|