Hi
Ok, so the wolf animal companion (or wolf wildshaped druid, or any wolf - and I'm sure other animals too) gets a free trip attempt after a successful attack.
So far so clear.
Now, standing up from prone is a move action that provokes AoO.
Does the wolf gain another trip attempt when he takes that AoO and hits? (Aren't AoO done prior to the action that provoked it, so the enemy would still be on the ground?)
If he does get another Trip... would that prevent the enemy from actually getting up and remaining prone if successful, or is it a wasted attempt anyway?
Or would a successful AoO already foil the standing up action?
Also that AoO is made against the -4 AC from trip?
|
Hi
Ok, so the wolf animal companion (or wolf wildshaped druid, or any wolf - and I'm sure other animals too) gets a free trip attempt after a successful attack.
So far so clear.Now, standing up from prone is a move action that provokes AoO.
Does the wolf gain another trip attempt when he takes that AoO and hits? (Aren't AoO done prior to the action that provoked it, so the enemy would still be on the ground?)
If he does get another Trip... would that prevent the enemy from actually getting up and remaining prone if successful, or is it a wasted attempt anyway?
Or would a successful AoO already foil the standing up action?Also that AoO is made against the -4 AC from trip?
You would not get a second trip becasue, as you note, AoO occur before the action that initates them so the person is still prone and thereforecannot be tripped. He does suffer all the penalties for beign prone, however.
|
|
This came up in our game last night.
I can not find a good reference in the rules.
Let me get away from the wolf specific question and get to the second part of Quatar's question.
When standing does the defender take a -4 to AC? Is he still considered prone when the AoO occurs? And again, where is this in the rules? Even so far as the AoO occurring before the action.
In the Combat section of the PRD:
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, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
So yeah, if someone provokes by standing up, you resolve the AoO and then continue with that guy's turn (at which point he's standing again).
However, as drsparnum said, if you can get your ready action in before they stand, you can pretty much keep trying to prevent them from moving.
This is why reach weapons with the trip capability are so nasty. A whip, for example, works well, even if you don't threaten, as long as you keep readying actions to trip the guy.
This came up in our game last night.
I can not find a good reference in the rules.
Let me get away from the wolf specific question and get to the second part of Quatar's question.
When standing does the defender take a -4 to AC? Is he still considered prone when the AoO occurs? And again, where is this in the rules? Even so far as the AoO occurring before the action.
Yes, by 3.5 RAW, you somehow (Telepathy maybe? Precognition?) know that he is about to stand up. This provokes the AoO even though he has not started to stand, because the 3.5 RAW says that your AoO actually takes place before his action that provokes the AoO. drsparnum quoted that rule in his post.
Me, I never bought into that rule in 3.5. There is no way for a typical combatant to react to an action before that action takes place. Just not possible.
Pathfinder is built on the 3.5 foundation, but they changed some things. One thing they changed is that there is nowhere in the Pathfinder core rules that states explicitly that AoOs happen before the action that provokes them. In fact, the text Kaisoku quoted from the core rules states this point quite clearly - the AoO "interrupts" (rather than precedes) the action that provokes it.
I take this to mean that this is a deliberate change by Pathfinder, allowing AoOs to become more realistic. But most people here on the forums disagree. Maybe hold-overs from their days playing 3.5. Maybe they just don't want trip-specialists to lock down one opponent (they would rather only let grapple-specialists do that).
In any case, there's more debating/arguing going on in this thread, which is also currently active on the first page of this forum (last post 8 hours ago).
Other active thread: Click Here.
|
|
Yes, by 3.5 RAW, you somehow (Telepathy maybe? Precognition?) know that he is about to stand up. This provokes the AoO even though he has not started to stand, because the 3.5 RAW says that your AoO actually takes place before his action that provokes the AoO. drsparnum quoted that rule in his post.
Me, I never bought into that rule in 3.5. There is no way for a typical combatant to react to an action before that action takes place. Just not possible.
I don't think its a stretch to see it as the attacker reading the body language of the victim and reacting to that before he completes his action (i.e. standing up). Technically its an interrupt, but you interrupt literally a split second into the action, and so you resolve your action before the foe's action.
In a real fight someone can block a punch before that punch lands (or gets anywhere near them if the practitioner is skilled), but obviously they are not using telepathy or precognition to know the opponent is going to punch them.
E.g.
Adam is prone and Barrag stands over him taunting him to stand up. Adam puts a hand on the floor behind him (effectively dropping his guard) and begins to pull his left leg under him, attempting to stand up, but still at this point quite prone.
Barrag reads the body language and responds with an AoO; he raises his quarterstaff and thrusts it down in the still prone form of Adam. The attack hits Adam square in the chest grinding him into the dust some more, Adam then pushes the staff aside and quickly gets to his feet.
Of course you don't have to read the opponent's body language accurately you only have to notice that they have let their guard down. So for example, Adam could have decided to try to crawl away 5 feet rather than stand up, Barrag could have mistaken the attempt to crawl away as an attempt to stand, but it is irrelevant as both actions provoke attacks of opportunities.
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, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
...that doesn't state it happens before the action is completed though.
He stands up - that provokes an AoO. Not before he stands, but the act of standing. Of course, as he stands up I try run him through, so that hit (or attempt) is resolved before his next action (whether that next action be an attempt to flee, move away, or counterattack).I'm with Blake in calling Cobblestones.
Adam is prone and Barrag stands over him taunting him to stand up. Adam puts a hand on the floor behind him (effectively dropping his guard) and begins to pull his left leg under him, attempting to stand up, but still at this point quite prone.
Barrag reads the body language and responds with an AoO; he raises his quarterstaff and thrusts it down in the still prone form of Adam. The attack hits Adam square in the chest grinding him into the dust some more, Adam then pushes the staff aside and quickly gets to his feet.
Why didnt Barrag instead try nail the hand or the supoprting arm, spoiling Adams attempt at standing (effectively re-tripping Adam)and keeping Adam on the deck for a follow up beat down?
|
|
Why didnt Barrag instead try nail the hand or the supoprting arm, spoiling Adams attempt at standing (effectively re-tripping Adam)and keeping Adam on the deck for a follow up beat down?
In real life, yeah sure you could keep someone on the ground by continually sweeping them as they strive to get up. My example was more to refute the assesertion that you need precognition or telepathy in order to react to an attempt to carry out an action before that action has been performed.
But in the game, your resolve the AoO before you resolve the action that provokes it (e.g. you attack the archer before he shoots the arrow at you at point blank range and you attack the mage before he unleashes the spell at you, you attack the wrestler before he grabs you), if you disagree with this then we have fundamentally different interpretations of the rules.
So given that the AoO is resolved before the action that provokes it, it follows that you attack a character getting to his feet before he has got to his feet. Those are the rules, they are a codified for ease of game play, the rules don't try to reflect reality completely.
Now you could make an argument to say that if you wanted to delay your AoO until after the standing person has got to his feet (so that you can trip him again) you should be allowed to, and in some way it makes sense, but those aren't the rules as written. If you did allow this, ensure that the modifier for having a prone target is not used (whereas the AoO made at the still prone target would get this mod).
|
|
I appreciate all the discussion and can see points on both sides, and can't really decide cinematically where I fall on the issue.
What I really want is a roll resolution:
A is prone. As he tries to stand B gets an AoO that is resolved prior to A doing anything else. My question is during the AoO is A penalized at -4 to AC for still being prone (though he is presumably in the act of standing)?
Thanks.
|
|
I appreciate all the discussion and can see points on both sides, and can't really decide cinematically where I fall on the issue.
What I really want is a roll resolution:
A is prone. As he tries to stand B gets an AoO that is resolved prior to A doing anything else. My question is during the AoO is A penalized at -4 to AC for still being prone (though he is presumably in the act of standing)?
Thanks.
I would say so. Although it doesn't matter either way as long as he's only affected by one or the other. Either he's prone and takes -4AC but can't be tripped; or he can be tripped but isn't prone and has normal AC. As long as your consistent in your rulings, it doesn't make much difference (I'm in the prone camp).
So given that the AoO is resolved before the action that provokes it, ...
I am not so sure that's a given anymore.
In 3.5 it was a given. But it's not in the Pathfinder core rulebook anywhere, so that might be a deliberate change.
I appreciate all the discussion and can see points on both sides, and can't really decide cinematically where I fall on the issue.
What I really want is a roll resolution:
A is prone. As he tries to stand B gets an AoO that is resolved prior to A doing anything else. My question is during the AoO is A penalized at -4 to AC for still being prone (though he is presumably in the act of standing)?
Thanks.
Yes, you treat him as still being prone:
When he is prone, he is penalized -4 to AC (or granted +4 to AC vs. ranged attacks). This penalty/bonus does not apply to standing combatants. Ergo, he loses the penalty when he is standing. The enemy's action is going from prone to standing, so he starts prone and ends standing. Since the AoO "interrupts" his action of going from prone to standing, the AoO comes before he gets to the end of his action, therefore it comes before he is standing, and thus it comes before he loses the penalty/bonus to his AC.
Me, I never bought into that rule in 3.5. There is no way for a typical combatant to react to an action before that action takes place. Just not possible.
Pathfinder is built on the 3.5 foundation, but they changed some things. One thing they changed is that there is nowhere in the Pathfinder core rules that states explicitly that AoOs happen before the action that provokes them. In fact, the text Kaisoku quoted from the core rules states this point quite clearly - the AoO "interrupts" (rather than precedes) the action that provokes it.
Where you are getting confused is your assumption that your AoO starts and finishes before he starts trying to stand up.
The point of the 3.5e rule (and in Pathfinder if you read the full quote I put up), is that you start and finish your AoO before he finishes his action. Not before he started his action.
Hence.. you "interrupt" his action.
The quote I put up specifically says to continue with the turn after you are finished the AoO. It also says to resolve the AoO immediately.
Here's the order of things:
ProneGuy: Prone. Starts standing up.
Attacker: Makes attack of opportunity, hitting the guy who is in the process of trying to stand (who still has the -4 AC as he hasn't finished standing yet).
ProneGuy: Finishes standing up. No longer prone.
That is the fundamental concept of interrupting an action. It has to have started and not finished yet in order for you to be interrupting, no? That's kind of what the word means.
Me, I never bought into that rule in 3.5. There is no way for a typical combatant to react to an action before that action takes place. Just not possible.
Pathfinder is built on the 3.5 foundation, but they changed some things. One thing they changed is that there is nowhere in the Pathfinder core rules that states explicitly that AoOs happen before the action that provokes them. In fact, the text Kaisoku quoted from the core rules states this point quite clearly - the AoO "interrupts" (rather than precedes) the action that provokes it.
Where you are getting confused is your assumption that your AoO starts and finishes before he starts trying to stand up.
The point of the 3.5e rule (and in Pathfinder if you read the full quote I put up), is that you start and finish your AoO before he finishes his action. Not before he started his action.
Hence.. you "interrupt" his action.The quote I put up specifically says to continue with the turn after you are finished the AoO. It also says to resolve the AoO immediately.
Here's the order of things:
ProneGuy: Prone. Starts standing up.
Attacker: Makes attack of opportunity, hitting the guy who is in the process of trying to stand (who still has the -4 AC as he hasn't finished standing yet).
ProneGuy: Finishes standing up. No longer prone.That is the fundamental concept of interrupting an action. It has to have started and not finished yet in order for you to be interrupting, no? That's kind of what the word means.
I believe you're agreeing with me. I'm certainly not at all confused on when I perceive an AoO to happen. I am dubious of the 3.5 rule that the AoO happens before the trigger action rather than during it, and I am glad that Pathfinder has no such stipulation.
In fact, you'll find in my post immediately before yours, I said exactly what you said in your "Here's the order of things" example.
So let's agree to, uh, agree.
I believe you're agreeing with me.
Yep! Sorry if I was sounding too contrary. I was in forum typing mode.
I was addressing the 3.5e comment, since even in that edition I was under the understanding that it wasn't interrupting before the action, but rather before the action was completed.
I don't have (or care to look up anyways) the wording of 3.5e, so I'm glad Pathfinder is clear on it at least.
|
|
Here's the order of things:
ProneGuy: Prone. Starts standing up.
Attacker: Makes attack of opportunity, hitting the guy who is in the process of trying to stand (who still has the -4 AC as he hasn't finished standing yet).
ProneGuy: Finishes standing up. No longer prone.
Well, I like this answer, so that is what I'm going to go with :) I think the problem I had was still that the book is not 100% clear to me on what the condition of the person is during the AoO.
Thanks guys.
Me, I never bought into that rule in 3.5. There is no way for a typical combatant to react to an action before that action takes place. Just not possible.
I presume you never make spellcasters roll concentration checks for AoO damage, then (it happens AFTER the spell is cast)?
I presume all AoOs provoked by leaving a threatened square cleave empty air in your games (because they happen AFTER the person is gone from the square you threaten)?
Etc...
That you cannot trip a person standing up with your AoO is the only sensible option as well as the only balanced option.
In fact, the text Kaisoku quoted from the core rules states this point quite clearly - the AoO "interrupts" (rather than precedes) the action that provokes it.
I agree with you here it is quite clear, although apparently, you are finding some different sort of clarity than I. You can't interrupt an action if it's done.
Just because I disagree with having the AoO occur before the action that provokes it doesn't mean I believe it must happen after the provoking action is completed. It's not that black and white.
Be careful with presumption. You know what they say, "presume" makes a 'pre' out of 'u' and 'me'...
I presume you never make spellcasters roll concentration checks for AoO damage, then (it happens AFTER the spell is cast)?
Not true. I presume that the AoO happens during their act of casting the spell, interrupting the act, and they can only continue casting if they make the very Concentration check that you presumed I never have them make.
I presume all AoOs provoked by leaving a threatened square cleave empty air in your games (because they happen AFTER the person is gone from the square you threaten)?
This one is a little more interesting. The gamist in me likes the AoO rules regarding moving out of threatened spaces. These rules make people careful with their movements and think more tactically. But the realist in me doesn't like it much.
Realistically, I don't think movement should provoke an AoO. After all, we're in combat, right? There is no way I am going to drop my guard and give you a free shot just because I'm moving. I see movies all over hollywood with people fighting, fencing, brawling, all over the battlefield, or castle parapet, up and down staircases, on the swaying decks of ships at sea, etc. Nobody ever gets gorked for moving. Eh, maybe those are all free 5' moves, and hey, cinema isn't always realistic either.
Maybe more realism would be that movement in rough or uneven terrain might provoke, but flat/safe terrain doesn't. But that adds complexity to an abstract system that I don't think we need.
Maybe moving parallel to you might give you a free shot, but moving away from you means I am already about 5' away from you when I "leave your threatened space" - that's a long way for you to lunge to hit me, and I see no reason why you could do that more easily or more often than you could hit me when I was standing/fighting next to you. But that's also extra, unwelcome complexity.
So, I presume that I play the AoOs as RAW, and leaving a threatened square in any direction allows your foe to take a shot at you, not at the empty air behind you, because his AoO is taken during your movement, not before or after it. In this case, "during" means "very near the beginning, while you're still in reach, but after you've begun moving and committed yourself to your movement".
That you cannot trip a person standing up with your AoO is the only sensible option as well as the only balanced option.
Then I shall have to live with my senselessness. Fortunately, I presume that I lack the sense to recognize my own senselessness, even when you so graciously point it out for me.
As for balance, it's never been a problem in any game in which I have participated, so I see no reason to change from the RAW where it says "interrupt" to some houserule that replaces that with "precede".
I agree with you here it is quite clear, although apparently, you are finding some different sort of clarity than I. You can't interrupt an action if it's done.
Agreed.
My clarity suggests that I can interrupt an action during that action. Your clarity, however, suggests that you are siding with those who say they can interrupt an action before that action even begins.
I'll grant that you didn't state that explicitly. However, others on this thread have, and that was the only thing I've disagreed with, and you disagree with me, so I presume to understand your position to be firmly in the camp in which all combatants are oracles who see the future and take their AoO before it is provoked.
In that case, I'm more than willing to accept that we have different sorts of clarity.
A quick 2 cp on my behalf.
I play with this as RAW.
HOWEVER if I was to play with it so that you could trip them as they are getting up as part of the AoO provoked by them getting up I would not make them take the penalty for being prone while they are being tripped. After all if they are up enough to be tripped then they are up enough to not be prone.
A quick 2 cp on my behalf.
I play with this as RAW.
HOWEVER if I was to play with it so that you could trip them as they are getting up as part of the AoO provoked by them getting up I would not make them take the penalty for being prone while they are being tripped. After all if they are up enough to be tripped then they are up enough to not be prone.
Works well for me.
|
|
So given that the AoO is resolved before the action that provokes it, ...I am not so sure that's a given anymore.
In 3.5 it was a given. But it's not in the Pathfinder core rulebook anywhere, so that might be a deliberate change.
Yes, having re-read the AoO section it isn't very clear (annoying!!!), however looking at related rules I still believe it is implied.
The fact that the damage inflicted by an AoO provoked by attempting to perform a Combat Manouevre applies a penalty to perform the Combat Manouevre implies that the AoO precedes the action.
|
|
I am dubious of the 3.5 rule that the AoO happens before the trigger action rather than during it, and I am glad that Pathfinder has no such stipulation.
I would need to re-read the PHB 3.5 to see exactly what it says (oh what I would give for a legal PDF of the 3.5 core books!), but I imagine it was more a case of slightly misleading phrasing.
If it says something along the lines of "the AoO is resolved before the provoking action takes place", I imagine it means "the Aoo is reolved before the provoking action is resolved" (i.e. before you roll the touch attack to initiate a grapple, before make the attack roll for firing the arrow etc).
Pathfinder is equally lacking in its wording as well, if anything I can see that many people would interpret the rules as an AoO happens after the provoking action (fortunately I do have the PDF to quote from :) )
The relevant quotes I will use below are:
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table 8–2 notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
and
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, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round.
I could read this in that it interupts the acting character's turn to allow another character to take an action (the AoO).
If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity,
Table 8.2 lists "Attack (ranged)" as provoking an AoO so a ranged attack "when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity". I could interpret that as saying you perform the ranged attack (including attack roll and damage) and now that a ranged attack has been performed (i.e. past tense) an AoO is provoked and that the AoO is now immediately resolved (i.e. we don't wait for the archer to take the rest of his turn).
..then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
If the action that provoked the AoO was the last action the archer was taking then we would continue with the next character's turn, or if the archer still had some actions left to take such as a move action, we would allow the archer to complete his turn. It doesn't actually say to continue by resolving the action that provoked the AoO - so I could read this as confirmation that the action that provoked the AoO is resolved before the AoO.
Basically Pathfinder could really do with changing the wording to clarify things to say...
"...immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the action that provoked the attack of opportunity (if that action is still possible".
The above is a possible interpretation of Pathfinder's rules (not one that I hold hence all the "coulds") but I think it shows that phrasing in PF is not perfect and so I don't think it unreasonable to accept that D&D3.5's phrasing may have been slightly off too, and that it didn't really mean that the AoO takes place before the provoking action even starts.
Just to reiterate, because it seems like it got lost in the shuffle, the 3.5 rules are crystal clear on this issue (see this link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a).
You cannot retrip on an AoO.
If you want to houserule that, fine. If you think the rules in Pathfinder are vague, fine. But, WOTC walked people through exactly this conversation and said what they thought should happen right there in that link.
I personally don't care much for what 3.5 said, I never played that system, so what Wotc say about it holds little weight. They aren't talking about Pathfinder.
I rely on what is written in the Pathfinder rules, and there is nothing in that material that prohibits the re-trip.