Numarak's page

Inert statues do not age, are not hungry or thirsty. That is the meaning of 'inert'.

Mindless statues can't go mad.

Since it says you are a statue, you are considered an object. Since it says you are alive, you are still a creature and can be affected but some of the spells that affect creatures.

My guess is that your Hit Points, Hardness and such variables depend on your size, as a stone block.

The spell produces Heavy Snow because the spell explicitly states it produces heavy snow. And also produces Sleet.

That snow and sleet is removed after the duration of the spell, that is also explicit.

We can debate RAI, but we can not debate that calls out for heavy snow the same as calls for the rest of things you say it calls.

It is your decision, and not RAW, not to include the heavy snow as heavy snow.

You could be right? Yes. That makes OP decision wrong? I do not think so.

The relevance, as _Ozy_ noted several years ago, is: why there is people that dismiss the area of effect of the Grease spell?

But the thing that intrigues me most is why those persons do not dismiss the area of effect of a Pit spell the same way they dismiss the Grease area of effect?

This is most intriguing to me.

It has nothing to do with Difficult Terrain or Pits. It is called Area of effect of spells.

If you take the part of "difficult terrain" as a label for "Difficult Terrain", it follows that you must also take the label of "heavy snow" as for "Heavy Snow".

See 'Fog'.

I think that what he means is that if you have a pit under your feet -aka you are in the area of effect of the pit- you won't dismiss the "falling into the pit" thing saying "Oh, well! 5 feet ahead there is nothing that impedes my movemet."

So imagine you have a Levitate on you. Someone casts a pit under your feet. Obviously you are not affected by the pit, but now imagine your Levitate wears off at the begining of your turn after the pit has been cast. From my perspective there are two camps here: the ones that say that you won't fall because you are moving into a square with no hindrances, and the team that says that you are affected by the pit because you are in the area of effect of the pit.

I'm inclined to think that Grease works the same way as the Pit.

What happens when you suppress -for, at least, one round- something that lasts less than a round? My guess is that you effectively dispel that thing.

Fireball, duration: instantaneous.

When it says "if you are invisible or the attacker is blind,..." means that you must proceed as if there was no Mirror Image in place, which means the attacker can not interact with the images.

If someone casts Mirror Image and Protection from Fire, and then is targeted by Scorching Ray rays, would you say that the rays hitting the images won't dispel them?

The same answer applies to Blur, Displacement.

In my opinion, and this is just a stand as a possible answer to those questions posed, the Images might looked like blurred, but they do not get any benefit from any spell casted on the defender.

Applying real world logic into how a magic system works, is not a good approach. I rather take in consideration the rule, brought into this debate by RV, that a spell does what it says it does, nothing less, nothing more.

It is not completely true that Blind-fight Feat does not affect your ability to move freely while blinded.

"You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded."

So there is, at least, one explicit disadvantage that Blind-fight supersedes of the Blind-condition; out of this point we might consider that other sections of the condition can be affected as well.

In my opinion, it is more general the case of not being able to see your opponent than the cause of not being able to see the opponent.

I'm not so sure about this RAI you mention because of the Strike Back Feat.

Another point of contention about that interpretation is that both Feats belong to CRB.

And one last point would be that Lunge specifies that the penalty for using the Feat lasts til your next turn, although the bonus only applies til the end of the turn; it would have been strange that the intention would have been otherwise, considering that both sentences follow one another in the same paragraph.

All in all, I would play strictly by RAW, or consider that RAI as plausible and add it to the House Rule territory at the begining of the game.

I would say that RAW it is not allowed. As you stated clearly: your turn finishes when you declare a Ready Action, and Lunge only works til the end of your turn, whatever happens after the end of your turn, it is not affected by Lunge.

RAI I have no idea.

And my guess is that the 2d6+CL damage is applied once on all those creatures caught in the area where the Firewall was casted, once the Time Stop ends.

"You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time."

Apparent time. They look like 'rounds' just to make it easier to play them, but they are not. If the caster walked through the fire or near the fire, will take damage, the rest of the creatures in the world, won't.

And I'm not saying that the paladin could charge, not at all, or act in the surprise round.

What I'm trying to say is that if there was a surprise round, then was in favor of the BBEG, the surprised characters should not have acted.

So, after speaking, if everyone had failed their percepcion check, when the paladin said "I charge into that square", the answer should have been, no, you are surprised, you can't act, I'll inform you when you can.

EDIT: (explanation of my point of view)

1st round: BBEG talks. Reaction: PCs roll perception (should be around DC 20 + distance modifiers + circumstance modifiers ).

Characters that pass the perception check act in the surprise round, characters who do not, are surprised and *do not* act. Chatacters who act must roll Initiative and have a Standard Action.

2nd round: the rest of Characters who did not act on round 1 roll Initiative and regular combat rounds start.

---

What happened instead was: BBEG talks, all the PCs fail the perception check, but BBEG did not get the surprise round, instead, they did not enter combat and the player who spoke first acted first, not being able to initiate combat against someone who was not able to see. Remember that being invisible does not immunize you to entering combat.

---

What you are trying to convince me is that:

As the BBEG is invisible he necessarily must obtain a surprise round, and that is not true.

Or:

The combat only starts when the invisible attackers decide to. Which neither is true.

For me is like those situations where the bad guy starts explaining his evil plan and the good guy comes and chops his head off. Sorry, pal, yes, you were invisible, you had the edge, next time, instead of bragging around, you get that in use.

I agree, Tarantula, talking does not necessarily start combat, but, for me, attacking a square does. After that, the invisible attacker retains invisibility, of course, but the paladin is already hacking out the hell of the room.

Chess Pwn, as Tarantula just said: "Nope. You can't act in the surprise round, because..."

But declaring to attack an square is acting. More even, how the heck did the paladin know to which square he had to move if he had no pass the perception check in the first instance?

So, we are in the case of a paladin who acted during a surprise round while being surprised and used his standard action as a move action to go next to an invisible foe for which he had no clue he was there.

There is only one surprise round, and has no bearing with someone being invisible or not.

Let's say there were 4 PCs and one -invisible- BBEG.

BBEG talks. Everyone in the room rolls perception, even before he talks, everyone had another perception check from the BBEG moving into position, but lets assume no one got that check.

After everyone rolled perception, everyone who had passed the perception check ( DC 20 highest option - although I feel it should be a bit lower- ) are in a surprise round, those people roll initiative and have a Standard action, which include say some words as a Free Action, like "the bad guy is there!"

If no PC passsed the perception check, then the BBEG has a surprise round, and only in this case, would make some sense for your paladin to wander around, but I would roll randomly to which direction you walked, since you did not pass the perception, actually, I would inform you: you heard a voice but you are not sure where it came from and what it said.

Yes, Jaynay27, that is what I'm trying to point out.

Let's say I agree with the DC 20 -although I feel that know8ing that someone invisible is talking to *you* should not be that high- everyone in the room should have rolled.

People who passed the check would be in the surprise round and roll initiative, which includes the BBEG, and acted accordingly, but in no way, the paladin who is still figuring out what's going on have to move into position.

The surprise round does not start when its most favorable to the ambusher. It has its own rules, which involves perception and stealth, not when "the paladin moves in position".

It is not true that "The paladin moved forward to see what the sound was coming from". The paladin, actually, moved to attack whatever was coming from that position.

I do not agree, sorry. And the reason because I do not agree is because the action of the paladin was lenient with the BBEG intentions; would have been "I cast a Fireball on that corner" instead of "I charge to that corner" would be accepted?

If answer is 'no' then, we can't accept the other situation.

If the BBEG was invisible and had a surprise round, which I do not deny, although I think that everyone should have roll a perception check at DC 15 or so -after being informed by the BBEG himself that he was there to attack them- that does not allow the GM to let characters surprised to move, attack or whatever, the BBEG had a Standard action, not the paladin who moved into position for being chopped off.

TOZ has made a point. It says DC +20. If hearing the details of a conversation is DC 0, it makes sense that hearing a conversation would be easier, more even if the other person is talking with the purpose of you to listen it.

Considering that DC -10 is the stench of a rotten corpse or the sound of battle, maybe, we could consider that knowing that someone invisible is talking to you is DC 15?

For which all of them, all party memebers, had to roll. So no one in the party, at level 12, rolled over DC 15?

And we still have the other problem: if the paladin *was* surprised, during a surprise round, how is it possible that *he acted and moved*?

Chess Pwn, the distinction is non-factor. Being it -the voice- from an actual person or a magic spell has no bearing in this situation, this is not the Shrödinger invisible voice.

*If* it had been a magic spell producing a illusionary voice, that would have been surprising. But it was not. It was someone invisible informing all its foes that he was there and get readied.

And if there would have been a surprise round, then you should have rolled initiative before acting. Or not rolling and not acting and being surprised, but what your GM did was not right, which is: you acting during a surprise round for which you did not rolled initiative and when you were surprised.

Option 1: there was a surprise round.

Option 1.1: you were surprised. You do not move, You do not act at all, you do not need to roll initiative.
Option 1.2: you were not surprised, then you should have rolled initiative, and then your GM would inform you you had a Standard action worth of actions.

Option 2: there was not a surprise round.
Then you all had to roll initiative and declare accordingly.

The option pointed by your GM is not possible: there was a surprise round, you were surprised, you did not roll initiative but you acted.

Knowing that someone invisible is talking to you is not DC 20. Sorry, someone had to say this. The moment you hear what that creature says and you understand what it says, there is no surprise round.

You enter combat and your problem is that you can not see your foe, but your problem is not that you are not in combat and surprised.

Perception includes hearing stimulus. This situation reminds me of Elan using bardic performance "Fool, fool, fool the stupid ogre". If I hide behind a bush and then start shouting or burn the bush off, that does not seem like a stealthy strategy to me.

Being unable to see someone does not equate to being surprised, although they concur many times.

On the other hand, if it was a surprise round, which I believe it was not, and your action was 'moving', you should have rolled initiative, because surprise rounds only occur during combat. If was a surprise round and you were not "in it" you should have not been able to move an inch. Is like if we had a GM saying "ok, this is a surprise round, you are surprised, what do you do in your turn?"

Attacking a target, being it real or illusionary does not change the fact that you enter combat; if that was not true, if the opposite was true, would mean that hitting a mirror image from the spell, won't allow you to leave the flat-footed condition, which is ridiculous. In other words, the succes or failure on an attack does not change the fact that you are "in guard"; would your character has been a mage and instead had said "I fry that corner from which the voice has come of with a Fireball" instead of moving towards there, would your GM has said you can not?

I already agreed.

But now that you bring it on again.

Declarations such as the one as follows won't be right either:

PC: I Spring Attack around the corner in case there is an enemy there.
DM: No problem, but when you turn around the corner you realize that there is no enemy at your movement range.
PC: Then I cast a Fireball.

Think so. I've been wrong in the past, and I'll be wrong in the future, and I'm always stubborn.

The way I interpret Spring Attack I think that you must pick the target before you start moving, otherwise Spring Attack won't be "one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle", because you would be choosing variables of that action amidst it, it would turn into "one continuous movement with the possibility of an attack happening in the middle".

I could be wrong.

Does Spring Attack require a target? I tend to think that answer is yes.

Does Spring Attack's target must be specified before you start the Spring Attack action (aka moving)? I tend to think that the answer is also yes.

It requires LoS? Yes.

The mechanics of other Full-Round actions do not clarify this one.

And yes, I could be wrong in the answer I give to all of those questions posed.

@Java Man

The question about Withdraw is solved the same way any movement is solved. Withdraw is a movement that, usually, uses a Full-Round Action. Movement is spent in 5-Foot increments; your declaration of Withdraw exhausts all your actions for that turn but the Frees and the Swift, but you can spend the movement Withdraw 'grants' to you however you prefer, even you can declare Withdraw and not move an inch.

The problem with Spring Attack is of a different nature. Spring Attack is one action that is composed by 3 different ones. I believe that you have to specify the 3 small ones in one declaration, not that you can perform one of the small processes, then decide what to do with the second and then the third, and declare the second and the third depending on the result of the previous ones.

EDIT: If you could do so, for me would feel like Declaring Withdraw, start moving and then, before using all your movement say: hey! Wait, I know I said I was Withdrawing, but, now that I'm adjacent to this enemy, I attack using my Standard Action. When you want to perform a Full-Round Action, the moment you decide, and declare so, you are going to perform it, you commit your whole turn to it. The action can be interrupted voluntarily or involuntarily, but you can't perform other actions but Swift and Frees.

@Gauss:

Answering you, I'll answer '1'. Because You declare that you will move, which is a Move Action. Since you said that, you already used a "Move action of your round", however you'll use your movement is up to you. Usually, as I understand it, movement is used at 5-Foot increments, so, whenever the creature that goes from A to B decides to *finish* the Move Action, that creature can do so.

The problem here is what Java Man is starting to glimpse and others haven't yet, in N N 959 words: "I believe his is trying to connect dots on a FAQ which is, imo, simply telling us that if you are using Spring Attack, as soon as you move, you're committed to the Full Round action."

That is exactly what I'm saying, and which I believe the FAQ is saying: you can't, by no means, declare a Move Action to move, then, in the middle of your movement, declare a Standard Action and make a melee Attack, and finnally declare a Move Action and walk back. That is not how Spring Attack works.

You declare it as a whole, and yes you are committed to the whole thing, you also 'spend' a Full-Round Action activating it. I'm not saying what you can do. I'm pointing to what you can not do with a Spring Attack.

The argumentation around Full-Attack option is non-sense, because it is specified when you have to choose between using a Standard Action or a Full-Round Action: after the first attack and before the second.

For me, makes sense that, that the variables that constitute the difference between understanding that a Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action and not "a Move Action, a Standard Action and a Move Action", are declared in one instance, otherwise they would be indistinguishable. And we've been told in the rule and in the FAQ that Spring Attack is 1) A Full-Round Action. 2) One continuous movement with an attack in the middle; and is not 3) "A Move, a melee Attack and a Move."

For me, this problem is more related to how Full-Round Actions are declared. Spring Attack just happens to be one of those.

Regarding to the question about the target, I recognised that maybe you could target a point in the space, or that maybe Spring Attack does not require a target -which is the only benefit of Spring Attack, for me, declaring Spring Attack without a target would be like declaring a Combat Expertise of 0- but this is a more specific problem for which I can be swayed.

Yea, maybe it's just me.

I assume these 2 premises:

a) Spring Attack requires a target.
b) Spring Attack can't be declared in two different instances.

Some of you agree that there is nothing in the rules that holds [a] true.

For me "and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack." implies [a].

I could be wrong.

---

And answering your first statement, I should point again to the FAQ.
"Spring Attack is a full-round action; it is not a move action, then an attack, and then another move action, it's one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle. ". If it is only "one continuos movement" then you have to declare it whole, for me makes no sense to declare "I move up there, and then when I check what's there, I decide what I'll do", that is exactly what the FAQ says Spring Attack is not: a move action, then an attack, and then another move action.

---

That being said, I understand your point: there is no line in Spring Attack similar to "If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent." that is on Charge Action, although the way I understand combat, that line is superfluous, how can you trace a line from a point of space to another you can't see?

I'm not adamant on my stance. I gave my premises and my reasons, and accept that [a] could be a false premise for many.

My line of reasoning is simple: you declare full-round actions as a whole.

The section of the FAQ I brought to this place is clear on this, again:
"Spring Attack is a full-round action; it is not a move action, then an attack, and then another move action, it's one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle. "

How is that you can declare a target that you, not even don't see, but you don't even know if it exists?

Already stated that a space could be valid target, although I also stated that [I believe] that is not the intention of Spring Attack, and if one allows it, then rules for targeting invisible opponents must be applied.

What, for sure, is not a rightful declaration of Spring Attack would be: I move 15 feet around the corner -you move 15 feet- now you are in the same square as a potential foe, and declare that you attack it, and after the attack is resolved you declare that you move back 15 feet. That would have been a misused declaration of Spring Attack.

Can you declare Full-Round Actions as a Standard action? Because that is what you are suggesting.

You are behind a wall. You declare a Move. You move. Then you see an enemy. You declare that you want to attack the enemy, but you can not declare a Spring attack, because you've already used your move action.

You can not designate a target off a suspicion. Even if it is a reasonable suspicion. You can attack a square in order to find someone that is invisible, but you are not attacking the invisible target, you are attacking and targeting the square.

Maybe, you could target a square behind a wall and declare -the square- it the target of your melee attack, but I don't think this is the intention for Spring Attack.

The line of sight restriction usually is for acquiring a target, and Spring Attack speaks of a target. Declarations are made as a whole thing. You declare the whole action in one sentence, you do not declare parts of actions and finish the declaration according to the result of the previous phase. Spring Attack is one Full-Round Action, and you must declare it as a whole.

---

To further undesrtand this I recommend to read the FAQ about Spring Attack.

It reads: "Spring Attack is a full-round action; it is not a move action, then an attack, and then another move action, it's one continuous movement with an attack happening in the middle. "

Being a full-round action and not a move, an attack and a move, it must be declared as a full-round action.

Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action and requires a target. If you can not declare a target -as per not seeing it through a wall- you can not declare Spring Attack.

The movement is not required to be a straight line though.

True Seeing is from Divination school.

First line of Mind Blank:
"The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic".

Mind Blank even goes further stating that protects the user from Wish when " used in such a way as to gain information about the target."

There are spells from other schools of magic that can foil Mind Blank, but no Divination spell can.

It happened to everyone, we designed a character and found out that there is a rule for which RAW answer confronts our expectations and thus our RAI.

The consensus about the Pinned Condition follows the suggestion that dragonhunterq pointed out. The list of actions you can do while pinned is exhaustive.

We also have to remember that, although that in this forum we should stick to RAW answers, out of PFS, you should play the game the way you get the highest enjoyment from it, and for that there must exist an open dialogue with your GM.

Supreme Stealth is an (Ex) ability. It can work on a Dead Magic area, or inside an Anti-magic Field.

Supreme Stealth does not require the possession of an item, nor being invisible, nor being in touch to that item.

That being said, on my own experience, Undetectable is quite an over-powered ability, but it is very specific and can be easily contained with a House Rule, so, IMO, does not require any change.

I tried to give an explanation on this during the heated moments of the old nauseated thread; I'll try again.

Imagine that you have different sets of actions, let's say Standard, Move, Swift, Immediate, Free, Full-Round.

Imagine also that you want to have different conditions that prevent the usage of some of those sets. Let's say that you want a condition that prevents the usage of Standard actions, or another one that prevents the usage of any action or, just imagine, that you want to create a condition that prevents the usage of Swift Actions and Standard Actions and Free Actions. And then you call that condition Nauseated.

Does that make perfect sense? No, we are working with abstractions here. There will be, no matter what, abstractions that won't fit the real world; of course everyone is free to apply whatever House Rule they want in their houses, but "this is not reallistic" is not the right argument to bring into the Rules'Forum.

Barring few corner cases, most of the Swift/Free actions that you can't do while nauseated are actions you won't do if you were not nauseated to begin with.

EDIT: I had my own personal grudge against the rules of incorporeal beings; is still a grudge, but now I know it's personal.

Are we still arguing if you can or can not perform a Swift action while nauseated?

You have a clear FAQ that answers that question. If you do not like it, go to Suggestion's Forum and rise your suggestions there.

And the answer to OP's questions is a plain 'no'.

And this is what happens when you Reincarnate an old thread -Transmutation- instead of using the ol'good necromancy.

P.S. Check Trickery Domain.

If you were looking for an analogy, would have been more precise to say: in order to eat spaghetti, in most cases you also need spaghetti.

As others have said already, even though you count as an ally to yourself, the Feats in the Teamwork section require 'another' ally than yourself in order to work out.

What you imply with your interpretation of the Feat is that you do not need, in most cases, at least two allies with the given Feat in order to work, and this is where we do not agree; we think that any specific Teamwork Feat that requires no other allies than yourself would specify that condition on its description with a sentence such as: this Teamwork Feat does not require another ally to work out.

We think that because our interpretation of the word "Teamwork" and the sentence "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield."

---

To put it in other words, lets take the Combat Medic Teamwork Feat. That Feat allows its use on a paralyzed, stunned, unconscious ally, which normally, you can not. If we interpret Teamwork Feats as you do, which is that you do not necessarily need another ally other than yourself if not specified in the Teamwork Feat description, then, by thus, if you are paralyzed by a venom, you could use Combat Medic on yourself just to treat the poison and remove the paralysis, or even if you are unconscious due negative HP, you could First Aid yourself, since, the Combat Medic Feat specifically says that you can use it on allies that are unconscious as long as they have the Feat.

You must understand that if this sounds absurd to you, the way we understand "in most cases...an ally who also..." makes us think that your interpretation of the necessity or its absence of another ally for the rest of Teamwork Feats is absurd as well.

You are right. Barring some spells language-dependant, the target of a spell does not necessarily needs to hear the spell to be affeted by it.

Valandil, read a bit further. Two paragraphs ahead: accidentally ending your move on an occupied space -as per not seeing an invisible whatsoever-.

So yes: your 5' step would be used and you will get back to your former square.

Actually this discussion is complete nonsense. Anguish pointed out the best -in therms of being tactically right and rulewise correct- option. T delays, D withdraws, T makes a 5-Foot step and whacks.

If OP intention was that D got a Full-attack and then a 5-Foot step, sorry, that is not valid.

Melkiador, the people who is against this action have no problem with the Ready, the problem is that D can not declare to move into an illegal square.

T can perfectly declare with no problem "when D's square gets unoccupied I move forward".

What we are against up is for D to declare "I move into T's square and finish my movement there" (because it is a 5-Foot step, and you can only perform a 5-Foot step if you do not move anymore in your turn, which will imply that D pretends to finish her movement into T's square, which is occupied by T, making her decision illegal).

Q: Is it legal to end your movement in an occupied square?
A: No.

[Check Combat Section, Ending Your Movement section][It reads: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.] Period. No exceptions.

Corollary (1):
Q: Is it legal to declare an illegal action?
A: No.

Corollary(2):
Q. Is it legal to declare to move into an illegal square?
A: No.

Corollary(3):
Q: Is it legal to take a 5-Feet step into an occupied square?
A: No.

Corollary(4):
Q: Can 'D' -under OP scenario- declare to step back 5-feet?
A: No.

===

Some people argue that there is a fold in space between squares where creatures exist while they move. Maybe that fol exists, but it is not RAW. I've never seen it written in any publication.

In other words: you can not declare I start moving when my friend is crossing the space/time fold, but before she arrives my square. Your friend is either at her starting square, so you can not occupy it, or in your square, which is illegal by the rules.

cuatroespada, as you said before, if I'm not wrong, we are not here to discuss rule 0.

The RAW answer to the OP is: no, get the Feat or get the AoO.

Valandil, what Diego tried to explain is the meaning of the term "Illegal Space".

An occupied space is an "Illegal Space" regarding movement ending; at this point we all should agree that the consequences of being illegal are that it is not elligible as a space to move into. Even the rules cover what to do when you end your movement there because an unexpected situation -lets say a turtle falls on your place, and the impact does not disable you nor the turtle-.

So it is obvious that D can not declare a 5' step because it is Illegal and not elligible, and thus the trigger never happens because D never leaves her place.

At this point, as we tried to explain before, the options for D are:

- Get the feat "Friendly Switch".
- Move more than 5' and declare a elligible spot, and thus provoking.
- Wait for T's square to be unoccupied.

Declaring something that you can not do is either not legal or has not effect.

If a turtle falls over a cliff, and declares she flies, the GM should say 'Ok." and she will keep falling. The same way, if a character declares she moves into someone's square, as that is not a valid option of movement, she will move as much as the falling turtle flew, nothing.

On the other hand, I do not think it is valid to ready an action that includes the own trigger. In other words, declaring "I Ready A when A happens" should not be accepted. In this case at hand: someone readies to move when herself has moved, or in the case of the OP, I ready to move there when she moves here, but in order for that to happen I have to move there.

A recursive trigger should not be valid.

====

So back to the former question. I believe that the character in the back can perfectly get into the forward position with a Ready action, what I think it can't be done is for the retreating character to move just a 5-Feet step, and in the absurd case both declare that they ready an action for the other to move first, obviously, none move.

====

To accomplish the "Swap places" feat, get the Feat.

The existance of Friendly Switch feat seems to indicate that if you want to produce this movement without provoking AoO, you have to take the Feat.

Ready Action interrupts before the trigger happens, so your ally is obviously still occupying her square, and your movement is invalid.

Either she moves back 10 feet -provoking- or you take the Feat.