# Rocket_Johnson's page

10 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

"Remember the perspective from which the rules are written. Biped medium/small humanoid. Its simply impractical for the rules to detail out every exception for different sizes of creatures - in every place where the rules would have an interaction based on creature size. AoOs are just one place in the rules that could happen."

Yes, it'd be very impractical to go through such a list.

Yet I'm simply positing that this written rule is simply intended to be as read without adding more assumptions, and that it's not out of accident or ease of being read or ease of comprehension that the rule refers to the creature itself and not every square the creature occupies, but that it was worded as is on purpose and designed for creatures of larger sizes, not omitting them.

Also there was mention and back and forth about that word in the specific rule "Usually".

The rule is worded the same in 3.5. Not sure about 3.0.

I've always thought of this exact point (large creatures only leaving two spaces) as the exact event that pertains to that word Usually used as it is in the rule.

When else would a creature moving through a threatened area not provoke?

I do guess there's the Acrobatics skills use to avoid the AoO, which it could be referring to. But I've never really given the exact intention of that use of the word 'Usually' in the rule a thorough thought until now. There's really no telling what all exclusions they could be referring to in total, but I just always assumed this was one of those cases.

"There is no direct rules quote that will ever truly answer the question… however, a simple logic problem can be used to answer it.

If you only count a large creature as leaving a square when it nolonger occupies said square then you create a situation where a creature can leave either 2 or 3 squares in one tile of movement depending on if it moved diagonally or not. This creates an inconsistency. To prevent the inconsistency it is best to say that it always leaves 4 squares even if 1 or 2 of those squares remains occupied after the movement.

Also @diego, the word “usually” exists in the rules for move actions provoking for a reason. Do you understand the meaning of that word? “Usually” means “not always, but often”. If something usually happens it is a first expectation that it will happen, but understood that it might not. The move action usually provokes. It does not always provoke. It usually provokes. The rules are clear that you only provoke once per round from moving through a specific creatures threatened area. It doesn’t matter if you stopped one move action and the. Started another within their threatened area or not, you only provoke once from your movement through that area for the entire round."

This statement from @chell makes the most sense to me, aside from the end of that second paragraph. I do agree there is no direct rules quote for my point of view here, but my evidence is simply in the lack of different wording in the rules.

If the rule was worded 'if any part of a creature moves out of a threatened area' i don't think we'd be having this argument as I'd be entirely incorrect that a large creature only leaves two spaces when moving laterally. But that is not the wording we have. The wording, as it stands to me, is simply a true false logic question.

-Did the creature leave the square? - Arguable
-Is the creature still in the square? -True
-Then (logically) did the creature leave the square (if he's still in it)? - False
Sure, part of it moved on. But that's not the wording we have is it?
-Criteria is thus unmet for an AoO in this true false logic statement.

Does this really create inconsistency more so than if any part of the creature provokes? I dare say no - as long as 3.0 has been available this is how I've seen it ran and ran myself in turn. It works fine as long as the rule itself is consistent.

I am surprised in the amount of folks seeing this rule in another light. But with the lack of a 'direct rules quote that will ever truly answer the question' I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick to my opinion on this one, but just not for the group in question of players who singularly and unanimously oppose the ruling as I'd prefer having fun over pissing people off over a ruling that I can find no evidence for in the end.

Regardless, I do think I'm sticking to my logic statement above for the groups that have been playing in that manner since the dawn of 3.0.

There are indeed five lights here.

The number of attacks is arbitrary and fairly irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I still contend that when the rule asks if a creature left the threatened square and the creature is in fact still in the square, then the criteria for an AoO is unfulfilled.

I think it makes too many assumptions otherwise. If it were intended that an AoO be provoked if 'any part of a creature' leaves a space, the rules would have been worded so. Not vice versa.

I am, however, ruling in favor of my objectively broken party, as I always do. But I am not changing how my three other groups run, as those other 18 or so players do not believe the rules work as argued here.

I'm not missing the point. The argument is clear. I just think there's a lot of people that are wrong, and it very well could be many of my very old play groups. I still have a hard time accepting that if a monster is not out of a square after a movement that he left the square simply for moving over that square.

The function of this campaign is the broken power level. It's worked for two years of play on the slow track, it's fun, but only if there are no rules arguments (as in any good game).

After over two years of play the only real rules contention (other than a clutch of players trying to chain the diameters for spells like Confusion) is this one argument here.

I have players in two groups that all swear the rules go one way, which is the way I've played it since 3.0 with one of these groups on Tabletop through multiple game masters. And another group of players who have brought this argument up who really benefit from it going another way, which it seems most folks here agree with, and which is contrary to 20+ years of gaming experience as I've never seen this interpretation of the rules before now.

"When a large creature moves 5', it leaves 4 squares. It also enters 4 squares. Depending on the direction of movement (orthogonal vs diagonal) 1 or 2 of the squares left will overlap with 1 or 2 of the squares entered."

This seems wrong and flys in the face of 20+ years of tabletop play.

Could it be that entire play groups have gotten this one wrong for years and years?

If a large creature is still in squares after a movement, did it really leave those squares? I still have yet to see a rules link that says yes or no.

I'm probably gonna get more crap for the runaway power level of the campaign, but a large (by 3pp race) level 13 PC going huge after a buff with a ranged weapon and 10+ AoO's is hands down the toughest of 24 pc's (out of 4 separate games ran out of the same campaign) to deal with.

Now I'm seeing this ruling, which feels contrary to the logic of the game that I've been playing since 3.0, making this one PC even stronger.

Wouldn't it make sense that equal sized enemies trump each other's AoO's similar to the fact that you need equal level spells to trump each other?

I'm probably just going to have to make a ruling here which is contrary to the feedback I'm getting. In the mean time I think I'm going to be seeking out some D&D 3.0 rules gurus to see if I can find anything different in the system that I learned originally which has changed little in the way of this very rule I think.

I'm getting different responses here from @diegorossi & @Belafon.

I'm leaning toward Belafon's response:
-A large (2x2 or more) creature is moving. When he starts his movement he is not threatened in any squares.
-As he moves, he enters a threatened square.
-At this point he only continues moving for 5 feet more. At no point does he ever "move out of" the threatened square because some part of him is always in that threatened square.

as this was my logic initially. Somehow Diego's response of
"A 20'x20' using a move action to move provokes in all its squares as all the parts of the creature are moving out of their current squares. "
does not make logical sense to me - if a creature is still inside a threatened area after a move action then logically he never left a threatened area.

@Rawmonger The good reason is behind a single broken PC with too many AoO's and too much reach. Without forcing the character to re-roll I'm trying to make sure we have fair and balanced rules regarding my approaches to the character with equal sized mobs.

My question is a simple one that has spawned endless debate in multiple games -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Does a Large creature move out of 2 squares or 4 when moving laterally? Or if moving diagonally does a large creature leave three squares or four with each step?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

This of course pertains to provoking attacks of opportunity in the Pathfinder 1 system, and assumes there is no charge and the movement is not a 5-foot step.

My players are arguing that the leading edge of large or bigger creatures provoke when moving toward a large PC. I posit that the leading edge of such creatures are simply moving through a threatened area and not leaving the threatened area since the creature is still within the threatened area after the move, which logically means the creature did not leave the threatened area.

Disregard - your kind folks working the Email queue finally got back to me and explained why it wasn't working.

I was just charged three times for three PDFs - it seemed like the final confirmation button on the payment process was broken. It did not complete the payment on your website so the items are still in my cart, but my bank was charged three times.

I've tried calling to a busy signal and I've left an email. I need someone to help me resolve this issue. I don't even know how I'm going to catch a response or resolve this on these forums.

-mjthornton84@gmail.com