MoshiMaro's page

Thanks for the constructive contribution and character portrait MeanMutton - you sure live up to your name :)
I indeed have an enormous lack of imagination...

?.....Yes that too :)

Either house-rule that they can't use that ability against anything but moderate-sized enemies making melee attacks, or house-rule it as a dodge that doesn't require the weapon.

The latter is probably better from a game-balance perspective.

The first would bring it in line with the swashbuckler parry and riposte. That was my initial thought as well - only melee attacks and a consecutive penalty for larger than medium-sized opponents.

Reading the reactions on my first thought - "NERF!" e.g. and the notion that in terms of power level the duelist is a poor sucker already I do agree with you Matthew, latter is better.

Even though I can't get rid of the thought that with the swashbuckler ability the developers 'corrected' the earlier mistake with the duelist which in turn they don't (perhaps dare to) fix because of all the nerf flak they would eat. Taking things away from player's makes you less popular than giving things to them :p

Hi guys, thanks for your replies...

I'm having the feeling that the discussion is going the wrong direction. Realistic, realism or lack there-of has NEVER had anything to do with it (for me that is)...

It's a combination of flavor/theme in the description and the resulting action. As James already extended the "parry" to "parry and dodge" more extending is needed imo for covering the resulting action. There is a mismatch between the title and the description.

It's the same as a spell named fireball which would result in conjuring a square of ice. (exaggeration intended)

When Matthew says

I'm pretty sure you can could up with a semi-plausible heroic narrative explanation of how the duellist 'parries' any given attack. "Vaulting through the air, you knock your friend out of the way of the incoming boulder, flicking it with your rapier as you pass to give yourself the extra push you need."

I can't not laugh when reading the narrative explanation for having to wield a piercing weapon and that's the main problem I'm having with it.

Either name or description of the class skill parry falls short - there's a discrepancy between the two and I'm having an allergic reaction to things that feel tacked on. Hence I want to fix it.

My question - are my assumptions 1 & 2 correct?

Thanks!

MoshiMaro wrote:

My player is probably not going to be happy about it but I am going to houserule that he can only use his parry skill on a melee attack...

OK. But note that, for the same of realism, you're turning a bad class into a terrible class.

I'd suggest the player uses a Swashbuckler instead since they already work like that:
"At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack."

We're playing CRB only I'm afraid. I didn't know the Duelist was/is considered to be a bad class... As for the Swashbuckler I was thinking that because that class has been developed later on they got the wording on that one correct from the start and failed to follow up in the duelist one.

I'd understand if the developers (James et. al.) used the "any attack" argument because the duelist would be going from bad to terrible but at least just say that straight up instead of dancing around the subject (pun intented)

So a poll then let it be "any" action which can be parry on either yourself or your ally or not?

Sorry to necro up this thread but as far as I can see this is the most recent and most 'official' explanation/ruling on the duelist parry ability. If not then consider the rest of the post as not written :p

and have the duelist avoid attacks as much as by deflecting the attacks with a well-placed blade as she is simply feinting with the blade and dancing to the side to avoid the strike.

...she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.

So the 10-ton rock thrown or disintegrate ray aimed at the ally is danced to the side by the duelist.... ?

If it were only the duelist herself it would be a perfect explanation for her to 'parry or dodge' ANY attack but since she can also protect her ally I have a hard time accepting it as a plausible explanation.

...Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.

And to add some more logic to it - if the duelist' doesn't wield a piercing weapon when the boulder is about to hit it's a no-no on the parry action...

With all do respect I think the explanation on ÁNY attack just falls short ánd flat the more I think about it....

My player is probably not going to be happy about it but I am going to houserule that either he can only use his parry skill on a melee attack or can only use the parry skill on himself.

Telekinesis spell

Combat Maneuver: Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform a bull rush, disarm, grapple (including pin), or trip. Resolve these attempts as normal, except that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity, you use your caster level in place of your Combat Maneuver Bonus, and you add your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer) in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. No save is allowed against these attempts, but spell resistance applies normally. This version of the spell can last 1 round per caster level, but it ends if you cease concentration.

Combat Maneuvers (Chapter 8 Combat)

Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Hypotheses when someone is using the Telekinesis spell in this way

And nót

CMB = caster level + INT/CHR bonus.

2) CMD = 10 + caster level + INT/CHR bonus

The latter instead of dex-mod. The replacement for STR is absent due to already being incorporated in the CMB.

My players are about to face a Black Pudding in our next session.
I'm wondering how the Acid ability exactly works .

Acid(Ex) A black pudding secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Each time a creature suffers damage from a black pudding's acid, its clothing and armor take the same amount of damage from the acid. A DC 21 Reflex save prevents damage to clothing and armor. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding takes 2d6 acid damage unless the weapon's wielder succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. If a black pudding remains in contact with a wooden or metal object for 1 full round, it inflicts 21 points of acid damage (no save) to the object. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

A couple of questions & assumptions:

1) Clothing is only clothing worn in the body slot, no headbands, cloaks etc. - this I assume because the Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks in the prd clearly makes that distinction.

2) The creature gets 1 save vs all clothing and armor together - or does he get 1 for the clothing, 1 for armor and 1 for his shield?

3) If the black pudding remains in contact for 1 full round - this would be when he grapples someone but since the grappling rules no longer assume one is all over the other creature I would say with grappling only 1 'item' is affected whilst when the pudding is pinning someone its Acid would affect multiple items.

4) The 21 points of damage are only applicable to wooden or metal objects - what happened to clothing and other soft fabrics - RAW implies they are not affected by the 21 point dmg rule :S

5) So when a pudding attacks an opponent and hits he:
a) deals 2d6 acid dmg (besides normal dmg) - the clothing and armor suffers the same dmg unless one/more save is made.
b) gets a free grapple check because of grab - if that succeeds he deals another 2d6 acid dmg with his constrict ability - the clothing and armor suffers the same dmg unless a save is made.
c) next round he makes another grapple check (to maintain) - another 2d6 acid dmg to clothing and armor due to constrict
d) at the end of the puddings round he is a full round in contact with the grappled creature and deals 21 dmg to a/multiple wooden or metal object.

I'm leaning towards using the aforementioned table to determine which object is affected instead of all items being affected. Only when the pudding manages to pin a creature - all objects worn/wielded by the character would suffer damage. I'm not sure though when using this "houserule" I'd be tampering with the challenge rating of the pudding.

thanks for the feedback!

Thrown splash weapons don't require proficiency, so I don't see why Tanglefoot bags would.

RAW:

As an aside, are we in agreement that a Fog Cloud counts as poor visibility?

What about an area in perpetual dim light (a room lit by spaced-out candles, for example)?
Moving around in the dim light cast by your standard torch?
A foggy/misty/snowy/rainy area where you can see 20ft?

I just read the line about poor visibility hampering movement.

As I'm reading it, and some discussions on the subject as well, I'm starting to believe that dim light constitutes "poor visibility" and thus hampers movement.

Does anyone know if there's a clear answer on the subject?

The best way to see the most recent updated to the FAQ is to check the most recent posts by the Pathfinder Design Team.

Thanks a lot!

So there's no way for me to see any changes in the faq?

Regarding te forum - the how to was explained in the only sticky (locked) post in this forum so I thought it'd be better to place it here. Agree with you that somewehere else'd be better

I see that the following FAQ has been updated:
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated: March 26, 2014.

Now I am wondering how I can see what exactly is updated.
There is an explanation on how to in the sticky post "The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It":

When viewing a FAQ category, you can configure your settings to highlight (in red) new FAQs that have been posted in the past day, week, or month by clicking those time increments in the ”Highlight items...” links under the header name for that category.

I don't see links under the header name???
Can anyone explain me how to do this?

I'm on the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook FAQ -(http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm) then what?

I've got a question concerning the use of perception in combat.

In the perception modifier table there is the following modifier:
Creature making the check is distracted - DC modifier +5

Does being in combat constitute being distracted?

I know there are other wordings stating you are faced with no threats or distractions(Take 20 description) thereby making an explicit distinction between the two. So would the absence of the word
threat... in the perception description imply there is no modifier whilst in combat?

IMO threatened should be considered more severe than distraction but that's just my common sense.

If it were - then would being in initiative constitute being distracted or only whilst actually threatened (for instance when in melee)

I'm very curious whether there are rulings on this subject or if it's up to the GM to decide.

MoshiMaro, you are oversimplifying a few things.

If there is not a state change then the action may continue. If the state change does not impact the action then it may also, continue. How does this apply?

You move, you are tripped and are now prone. Since you cannot move while prone (other than crawling) your new state prevents you from continuing that move.

You are prone and declare that you are standing up. As you begin to stand up, and are 'tripped'. Since your state does not change (you are prone and a new trip attack cannot make you doubly prone) you may now proceed with your action of standing up.

The action is then continued and resolved. Without it starting, there can be no Attack of Opportunity. Otherwise, you get people declaring that they are casting a spell, you make an Attack of Opportunity, and since your AoO hits them before they resolve the spellcasting they 'change their mind' and dont cast? No, it doesn't work that way.

The action (or movement in the case of this thread) provokes. Since the action is IN PROGRESS when the AoO occurs it cannot be undone.

No, this is not clearly spelled out in the book. But it is clearly reasonable.

At this point you have had your answer by a number of people and while it is not unanimous it is mostly 'he loses his action if his new state cannot perform the action'.

- Gauss

Gauss I agree with you 100%, It's exactly the way I would interpret all of this. I also see that most people agree with me here which confirms that even more.

The only thing I'm trying is seeing if there is something in the rules that makes it explicit...

I guess the conclusion is that it's not crystal clear but can be extracted/defined from what is reasonable or logical.

Thanks to everyone for the input!!!

MoshiMaro, lets turn that around: What rule is allowing you to change your action once it is declared?

There is no such rule indeed; RAW doesn't go into the declaring of an action.

But that doesn't automatically change it into the line below:

If you have declared an action it is declared, there is nothing in the core rules that allow you to change it.

The fact that something isn't mentioned in the rules doesn't make it possible...

If we delve further into the land of assumptions we can argue that:

Why is it explicitly spelled out in the Full Attack action that:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks...

You can argue that this is an exception on the (unwritten) rule of committing. The explicit line in the Full Attack option can imply that you are committing in normal circumstances.

Another assumption:

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.

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

It implies the (declared) action is then resolved; it doesn't seem to give room to let the target choose another action. (As others have suggested in this thread the target of my example can)

And the third example/assumption which does not go into AoO's but the Ready action:

The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action

This is probably the closest rules text which implies that you are committed to your action...

Maybe Paizo nor Wizards with the old D&D 3.x wants to leave these things up to your playgroup and how tight or loose they want to play the game...
So do they want to leave it up to individual choice of play or do they have an actual opinion it?

Now, what happens if the Cleric has 2 holy symbols? Can he just shrug and keep casting?

Then I'll give my GM the Evil Eye for metagaming his NPC's on my monk :p

....It would be impossible to provide explicit examples of every possible event. Such a book would be larger than the CRB and still be incomplete.

If only they cleared up the consequences of declaring an action (committed to it or not) they would only need 1 sentence to clear all this up ;)

....Just because you end up prone in your starting square doesn't mean you didn't move at all. You provoked by moving. The fact that you haven't used any of your allotted movement is what allows you to crawl, but you don't get that move action back to do whatever you please with. The move action was declared and initiated. That's why the AoO happened.

...I also disagree that the move action is still undefined. You are not declaring a general move action.

You are declaring a specific move action called 'Move'. Once that is declared, you are locked in. If an AoO occurs that screws up that declared action you cannot take it back and say it is now the move action 'Stand Up' (which is a completely different move action).

I tend to agree with both your views but as said before I'm still looking for something which confirms either point of view.

The timing of the AoO is indeed executed before the move action is resolved (whether standing up from prone or moving out of a threatened square).

But the action has already been announced; is the action thereby committed (and lost if it can't be completed)?

In other words is there a difference between announcing and resolving?

The relevant question imo still is:

Are you committed to the action once you announced/declared it or are you free to choose another action once you cannot complete the one you announced...?

Okay, here another question to stir the pot: you trip a moving rogue who has either fast crawl (so she can keep moving while prone) or stand up (she can stand as a free action). I would assume in those cases that she can just keep going?

Yes to both

If you want to disrupt the spell, the mechanism is explicitly defined. You use that mechanism, you don't create your own.

I'm not trying to create my own; I think my example lies between the two rule quotes:

and I'm trying to find out how it exactly works because they contradict each other in a certain way.

For example: If your statement on the Ready action would be consistent let's apply it to the distracting a spellcaster.

To blunt: A readied action occurs before the triggering action. If you want to disarm the spell component you may do so, but the spell is not lost because the caster never started casting. ...

If following your reasoning why would the spell be lost when someone deals damage -> The caster didn't start to cast so how can he lose it?

Now replace an attack which does damage with a disarm attack:

What's the difference....

I am not convinced it works one way or the other but I strongly disagree with you that the mechanism is explicitly defined.

you could just try to sunder the wizard/etc spell pouch. XD wont work on sorc, or far into the campaign as they might start taking Eschew, etc...

I don't think sundering a pouch will destroy the components inside (at least my DM won't go along with that): they might drop to the ground but that's about it.

The ability is a lot stronger vs an Evil Cleric who channels negative energy through his Holy Symbol and/or relies on his holy symbol for high power spells which require it.

By disarming a holy symbol (and snatching it because my monk character does so unarmed) you can severly cripple an Evil Cleric which makes it a valid strategy imo.

Readied Action wrote:

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

Emphasis mine. The caster keeps the spell.

I don't read here that he gets to keep the spell, that's what you make of it.

It also contradicts with the quote you pose below: “if she starts casting a spell.” is the exact same trigger as above.

If you want to force a concentration on the caster, there are specific rules for that:

Distracting Spellcasters: wrote:

You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).

You follow those rules.

I don't want to force concentration on the caster -> I want to disarm his Holy Symbol when he starts casting a spell... The end result can either be:

2A) He loses his spell (same as described in the concentration section of the PRD)

or

2B) He doesn't lose the spell because he isn't able to "start" casting it at all because the necessary component is gone

It's about announcing and resolving actions, the line “if she starts casting a spell.” implies that casting has begun but not finished hence 2A will go in effect.

I don't see the different end result between the timing of a disarm and damage dealt; they happen at the same time with the same AoO or Readied Action. The only difference would be that a concentration check isn't necessary because the caster doesn't have the necessary components to cast/finish the spell...

it may be, ask your DM. a calm collected argument, and he might go for it, ya never know. i dont think RAW specify either way.

And guess what I'm doing here :p

Calmly collecting arguments ;)

True, situationally stealing may be better.

The only kind you couldn't really do this to would be a quickened spell.

Of course "Steal" would be better but my playgroup plays Core-only hence my questions on the disarming.

The outcome is important because if the opponent doesn't lose the spell (or action) the ability to disarm in my example becomes a lot less stronger and a lot less viable to focus on with a build.

no, but you can buff as a swift, shift as a move, then attack as a standard.

Quote:

Take 5-Foot Step

......
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

What its saying is you can either:

A) 5' before your swift and std
B) 5' after you buff (swift) and attack(std)
C) buff (swift) [so it wouldnt provoke for example], shift, then attack.

I think the wording is a throwback to confusion about only at the front or end of your turn

In your explanation of the wording the line should read between instead of during

As I already posted on the confusing 'during an action' line probably refers to a Full-round action:

I assume that line is only in there to make a 5-foot step possible during a full-round action, but it says "during"

Anyways this post is solved imo...

Thanks for the input.

He couldn't take a 5' step during the pickup action because he has to be in the same spot to pick the item up. You can't pick an item up while simultaneously stepping away from it.

This post is not about picking up an item....

It depends on the casting time of the spell and when do you disarm/steal the material component.

Casting time 1 round or longer
-> spell is lost if you steal the material component after the caster starts to cast (not as an AoO or readied action)
-> spell is not lost if you steal the material component during the start of the casting via AoO or readied action

You assume that with an AoO the action of casting a spell hasn't started yet:

The article below stems from Wizards and was released when the D&D 3.0 Rules were being used.

.......
PC (Vadania): I start casting summon nature's ally IV; it'll bring in a dire ape next round.

DM: Fine. The goblin sees you start casting and decides he wants none of that. On his turn, he skitters up to 15 feet away from you...your spell has a divine focus material requirement, right?

PC (Vadania): Umm...yeah, why?

DM: Because the goblin's going to try to disarm you. First he needs to make an attack roll to hit you, [rolls a 25] which he does. Now then...the two of you need to make opposed attack rolls. Since the goblin is using a whip, he gets a +2 bonus to his roll.

[The DM rolls a modified attack roll of 25 while Vadania only rolls a 17.]

DM: He does it! Your holy symbol gets snatched out of your hand and it clatters to the ground. Since you needed that to cast your spell...the spell is disrupted. It's your turn, Krusk!
.......

From this article I conclude that:

1) The spellcaster does not get a concentration check

2A) He loses the spell

This is as far as I know the only good source (in either Pathfinder or D&D 3.x) which addresses the disarming of spellcasters in a proper way.
At the same time the rules have changed of course from 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder but with those rule changes the example above would IMO still be a valid one...

Simplest answer: an AoO is just an attack roll. No other actions can be combined as part of it, not even a 5 ft step. So if the enemy doesn't have enough reach to take advantage of you provoking the AoO, then he can't take the shot.

That seems the most plausible to me as well. The 5-foot step being a miscellaneous action and the during an action made me have some doubts though...

Thanks for the replies.

I don't think there is a specific sentence in any of the rulebooks to point to, but only because there doesn't need to be. In order to provoke the attack of opportunity, you had to move. You were slammed to the ground when you tried, but you've still used up that action.

Let me see if I can find something that talks about interrupts, but regular old common sense ought to solve this one for you. You were moving, and you failed at it just the same as if you missed an attack. You still tried, your action is gone.

At the same time you could reason otherwise:

Since you haven't actually spend any movement (not even 5 feet since you got knocked down) you didn't move...You only attempted to move (turning your back to someone to step away) The attempt provoked the AoO hence you didn't use the action.

I'm also leaning towards the "lose the move action"-thought but I'm
not sure.

Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

The does not prevent line makes me believe that the peoples at Paizo actually have thoughts on the matter, I'm looking very hard to find anything written down on this subject.

If any of you finds something on this I'd be pleased to know.

Bump

Anyone.....?

Also note that a 5ft Step cannot be taken during another action. He must finish the act of picking up something (or not). Once that is resolved he can then he can use his 5ft step.

According to the definition of a 5-foot step you can

Take 5-Foot Step
......
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

Of course I assume that line is only in there to make a 5-foot step possible during a full-round action, but it says "during"

If I disarm a spellcaster of his material component or divine focus what will happen:

I assume I can either disarm him with an AoO (when he doesn't cast defensively) or with a readied action.

I succeed my disarm and make him drop the material component or Holy symbol.

What happens?

Assumptions:

1) He doesn't get a concentration check because the necessary component is gone.

2A) He loses his spell (same as described in the concentration section of the PRD)

or

2B) He doesn't lose the spell because he isn't able to "start" casting it at all because the necessary component is gone

Can the definition and/or timing of the Readied Action change any of the above?

The best this character can hope for is a situation which would allow him to take an AoO on the tripper... interrupting him.

The 2nd question is tied to the other post indeed. But to clear things up in the other post I'm assuming my character has improved trip in this post I'm assuming he has not. The posts follow each other up because I'm wondering whether or not I actually should take Improved Trip as a feat.

It doesn't provoke an AoO because he's not threatening your square.

You also can't take a 5-ft step outside of your turn

But it is my opponents turn so he should be able to take a 5-foot step, I am only wondering if he can make a 5-foot step in response to my AoO and then he will be able to AoO in return because he does now threaten...

All this because a 5-foot step is defined as a miscellaneous action and says:

Take 5-Foot Step

......
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

I think it can't be done but I'm not 100% sure

Making an Attack of Opportunity:

......
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity

It says indeed immediately but the exception is when an AoO triggers an AoO so I'm still wondering if there is a small chance you can also wiggle in a 5-foot step

Another question:

I'm a monk with a Guisarme and do not have the improved trip feat

An opponent provokes an AoO at 10 feet distance

I decide to trip him but because of the lack of improved trip my trip attempt provokes an AoO from my opponent.

Now I have reach and he doesn't but is he:

1) Allowed to take a 5-foot step and then make the AoO?
(If for example he provoked an AoO because he wants to pick up an item)

2) If allowed, is it any different when he provokes the AoO by wanting to move out of reach with a regular move?

The move trip situation is better compared to spellcasting while threatened. The caster announces that he wants to cast. The melee threatening gets an AoO and hits. Now the caster can't change his mind and say "now that you hit me I do something else instead." No, he's locked into trying to cast and has to make his concentration check or lose his spell and the action used to cast it. He startet to try and cast then was interrupted.
Same with the move. He startet to try and move, was interrupted and that used up his action.

I also made that comparison myself but again: With the concentration skill it is explicitly stated in the rules and with my example it is not, so I'm still looking for evidence which supports my assumption that the opponent loses his move action

It's no different than if someone tried to attack you as an attack action and you used Crane Wing to parry their attack. It's as if the attack never happened, but they still committed to it so it still burned their standard on the attack action. The triggering action is moving out of a threatened square so that's the first action on the stack. Then AoO trip is the second action on the stack. Trip resolves first and the target is now prone. Now move resolves and is blocked by the Prone condition. So it'd be no different than starting your turn prone and declaring, "I'm going to spend my move action to move." and sticking with it. You can certainly do so, but while prone your effective speed is 0 so you spend the move to go 0 squares.

Your reasoning is a bit flawed:

1) Crane Wing doesn't prevent the attack but prevents the damage an attack does and is therefore an akward comparison.

2) If following your reasoning: move resolves and is blocked by prone action: it doesn't because you can always crawl as a move action

3) You imply that it is no different from starting your turn prone. That is not the case because starting your turn you have 2 actions left. In my example you already spent your move action and have only 1 standard action left

But at the same time you address the problem by assuming there is a stack:

Your stack comparison isn't written down in rules as far as I am aware and that is exactly the thing I'm looking for

It negates the move action...

The anti-trip lock ruling works because the trip attempt on a prone character doesn't actually prevent his moving, and therefore doesn't interrupt his move action because you can't trip a prone character.

So you actually agree with me now MDT that in my example the opponent loses his move action?

I'm also not sure that tripping evaporates someone's move action if used before they move at all....PF isn't a system where you declare actions and are stuck with them no matter what.

That is indeed the subject I am looking for:

Jason's FAQ entry makes me doubt your claim though. (See my previous post) He talks about resolving an action in his FAQ entry whilst nowhere in the whole PRD the difference between announcing and resolving is explained properly.

When it comes to your example: that's easy because it's explicitly stated in the PRD.

Full Attack...You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

With my example it is not...so that's why I'm not sure about it.

The examples between moving and getting tripped(1) and standing up from prone(2) aren't similar which Jason imo confirms:

The FAQ line posted by mdt makes me realize when it comes to my example (moving and getting tripped) you indeed lose the move action

Read careful what Jason says:

Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

(1) My example:

(2) Whilst in the other example (standing from prone)
The action doesn't get prevented by a new trip attack.

So what is the result from preventing the target's action?

I assume the move action is lost or am I dead wrong?

Wrong, you can't trip lock someone. The attack of opportunity is provoked before the action completes. Just as moving out of the threatened square provokes before the move action completes, so does getting up. That means, when he provokes for standing, it provokes before he completes standing. Since you can't trip a prone opponent, all you can do is make a normal attack (or any non-trip manuever that is valid on an AoO).

The timing of the AoO is indeed executed before the move action is resolved (whether standing up from prone or moving out of a threatened square).

But the action has already been announced; is the action thereby committed (and lost if it can't be completed)?

In other words is there a difference between announcing and resolving?

Knocking him prone effectively ends his move action. Once you stop moving, your move action ends. Falling is stopping your move action...

Thanks for the quick reply, that's exactly what I thought as well.

I had doubts because of the timing of the AoO trigger: The opponents lands prone in the square he was trying to leave. That makes me wonder whether he, although he announced a move, he actually executed it.

I was looking in PRD but couldn't find anything; is there any source that confirms your reasoning?

What happens in the following situation:

- An opponent moves out of a threatened square with a regular move (move action).

- My monk gets an AoO and decides to trip him (monk has improved trip)

- The trip attack succeeds and the opponent ends up prone.

Now my question:

How many actions has my opponent remaining?

1) Has my opponent already spent a move action by trying to move out of my threatened square and does he 'lose' that one (Since standing up from prone is another, separate, move action)?

Or

2) Can he just stand up as a move action and then continue his move?

Or

3) Hasn't he spent his move action because before he would actually move I AoO'd him So he can just stand up as a move action and then take another (standard/move) action?

Or

4).....?

Thanks!

Paizo Blog: Stealth Playtest, Round Two--Stealth wrote:

When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

So say my rogue is hiding in some bushes and is unobserved by an opponent can he:

Charge from the bushes at the opponent, attack him and use his sneak attack?

I presume it can because of the second bold line...The opponent is denied it's dex bonus because he treats you as hidden until the end of your turn

IRL it would make sense this way; the opponent is surprised and unable to act appropriately until its "his turn"

When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment.

So say my rogue is hiding in some bushes and is unobserved by an opponent can he:

Charge from the bushes at the opponent, attack him and use his sneak attack?

I presume it can because of the second bold line...The opponent is denied it's dex bonus because he treats you as hidden until the end of your turn

IRL it would make sense this way; the opponent is surprised and unable to act appropriately until its "his turn"