...
I would hope that the rest of my party is able to do something to the monster, and/or drag me the heck out of there once I am unconscious or wounded.
If hope is your only option ......
I would maybe "bluff" my way into pretending to be knocked unconscious.
Trips dont do hit point damage. It looks like you are back to that hope option, and if the rest of the party is trip-locked you just get coup de graced to make sure you are dead.
I would try to attack from prone to kill the monster.Fighting a melee based monster from prone, really?
I would cast a spell from prone (if a caster).The most power class(Casters) might be able to get out. If that is what it takes, and even that is not a good guarantee depending on the intelligence of the monster then that just shows how broken it is. It does not take much wisdom to ready an action against spell casting.
I would distract the monster with a spell/diversion/ability.You might have to explain this one to me.
I might even (gasp!) die. If I am resurrected, I would try to fix my CMD (which everyone has, btw). If my character wasn't rezed, I would roll a new character and knowing my GM might use this tactic against me, I might choose different footing/ground/tactics/terrain to fight on. I would increase my CMD. I might take the improved trip feat to gain the bonus against trips. I might do a variety of things to avoid this.Monsters win the CMB battle, especially at higher levels. The only thing to do is try to stay out of range, but once again the DM controls the world. If he wants you in range then you will be in range.
Not EVERY monster you face from this point on would be a trip-lock. Not every build will be one. Not every NPC can do this.Every monster does not have too. You only need to lose one battle to die.
Lastly, I would like to point out again that NOT
The words "hope option" was not snark. I was actually serious, and no I am not being snarky now. When you have to depend on the opponent rolling badly or else I think hope is pretty much all you have left.
|
Apologies ...
None needed, mate... none of that did I really intend to direct toward you, but more toward the five page thread that has no real use in the rules forum (after about page 1). I guess I'm just stuck on the whole "Jason took time out of his day to answer the question, so why are people still talking about it in the rules forum" thing. I guess it's just my way of respecting Paizo staff in general, and Jason in particular, since he seems like a really busy dude and, you know, his name's on the cover :-p
People want to do it differently, more power to them, there's a forum for that, that's all.
Besides, I've been quite stressed out lately, new daughter born on Sunday, watching our two-year old by myself until his mom gets home from the hospital... I'll probably just stop posting until I get on a more even keel. Hopefully, nobody takes me too seriously anyway, I'm just a guy on the internet.
Cheers,
J
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, instead of getting an AoO to attack the target of YOUR trip attempt, instead you get to use a *swift* action to deliver an attack as well?
This sounds needlessly complex. If I understand you correctly, you lose the ability to AoO on a standing opponent and instead gain a swift ability to re-trip them?
I, for one, wouldn't want this as a house rule and I really don't want to see it as a change to the base rules. As a feat someone could take, sure. But why take it?
So, instead of getting an AoO to attack the target of YOUR trip attempt, instead you get to use a *swift* action to deliver an attack as well?This sounds needlessly complex. If I understand you correctly, you lose the ability to AoO on a standing opponent and instead gain a swift ability to re-trip them?
I, for one, wouldn't want this as a house rule and I really don't want to see it as a change to the base rules. As a feat someone could take, sure. But why take it?
No - AoO on stand would remain, it's the AoO from Greater Trip that's impacted - but there's a new thread for it anyway.
The words "hope option" was not snark. I was actually serious, and no I am not being snarky now. When you have to depend on the opponent rolling badly or else I think hope is pretty much all you have left.
Well ... that's just ... that's just daft man!
You *do* realize that while it's a role playing game, about 90% of conflict resolution involves rolling of die, right??
Die-rolling is a full on element of chance ... it's NEVER negated in-game.
*stunned look on face*
Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?
Ironically, I had the exact opposite opinion of tripping under 3.5.
In 3.5 you got the +4 bonus for the attack of opportunity on the opponent standing up as he was still classed as prone at the point the attack of opportunity was made. Hence the reason you could not trip the person as he was already prone and then stood up after your attack.
I am sure this was clarified in sage advice as well at some point, as I sure as heck didn't make it up.
I carried the rule over to Pathfinder and have always used that ruling.
EDIT: I failed to notice that this thread was 7 pages long before I posted something that has probably posted before.
EDIT 2: Dragon magazine issue 322 I am informed has the relevant sage advice.
EDIT 3: On the wizards site archives they have a section "All About Trip Attacks (Part Two)" that includes the following statement:
It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, you can't be tripped while getting up from prone, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. Since you're still prone when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity can't trip you.
Your foes still can use trip attacks to keep you down when you're prone, however. A foe can use the ready action to prepare a trip attack against you when you stand up.
How to deal with triplock:
Attempt to stand (move action)
IF triplocker fails CMB check (natural 1 always fails), stand and act as normal.
IF triplocker succeeds at CMB check, use either attack from prone at -4 if possible (-2 if I can get flank), or use Total Defense (standard action) to gain +4 dodge bonus to AC (negating the -4 penalty for being prone.
The triplocker still has to whittle down my hp to kill me (no Coup de Gras like any of numerous ways to render me helpless). I can still move to a limited degree and still attack.
Every round I have a chance to get out of it, and even if I fail I can still take an action (unlike held, asleep, or paralyzed).
The cycle is not unbreakable. I can still act. It's rough, but not a fight ender since you are not out of the fight. When being triplocked is a good time to go and make a sandwich (like paralyzed) I will be worried about it.
Betting on a natural one is not a strategy.
What is acting as normal? An optimized tripper has a reach weapon, and if you leave a threatened square you provoke again.Reach weapons prevent attacking back.
Triplocked is sandwich time. I would make my tripper enlarged to make sure it was sandwich time, but I dont even know if that is needed.
Even then the Trip-ee has options, and he's not helpless like everyone seems to think he is.
Also remember that the tripped target is going to have friends to back him or her up.
Someone made the argument that a spell that can produce a more severe effect is a one time effect... but logically, they've got a LOT more spells then just one, and how many big bad targets are you going to run into in an average adventuring day?
Too much to respond too, but...
1) The issue of "how is a DM to not TPK the party" is a strawman. The DM is in TOTAL control of the opposition and their tactics. A DM can, at any time, throw an unwinnable encounter at a party. Trip-locking makes no difference, and the entire issue should just be thrown out.
2) From level 1, any decent Cleric or Wizard or Druid or Bard is likely to have a plethora of tooks that will do far worse that a trip-lock. Forget Sleep or Hold, Grease will seriously nerf any dex opponent AND make them vulnerable to SA with NO SAVE!! Trip-locking is a tactic that needs 1 feat (Combat Reflexes), at least a dex of 13, and is better with 2 more feats (Imp Trip, Gtr Trip). Spells come free, and many call for no save at all. Compare trip-lock to Wall of Thorns. In fact, denying trip-lock is kind of a "fighters can't have nice things" position.
3) I do not dispute what the rules say. They are clear, but, IMO, gamist. While you are radically realigning your center of balance, like you are while standing using ANY method other than a martial arts jump, you are vulnerable to being tripped.
4) Specifically, I see the standing as provoking an AoO, a trip disrupting the move and costing the move action, and the options open to the character at that point is:
a-Stand up. Use that standard action and stand. Yes, you provoke, yes, they can try to trip you again, but so what? They burn another AoO, which is better for your party.
b-Attack them. Yes, attack from prone. Is the weapon the issue? Sunder. Or Disarm. Them standing? Try to trip THEM. As long as you remain prone and do not try to stand, they cannot trip you.
c-(houserule)Make an Acrobatics check to move in a threatened square without provoking an AoO. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and gives the character two chances for success (Initial Acrobatics check, then the CMB vs CMD if that fails) instead of one.5) If trip-locking is not a big deal vs monsters, since they tend to have very high...
Those were salient points.
Someone above also responded to the timing, but I don't think they understood the concern.
If an AoO interrupts and action, then its timing should be during the offending action. If your status PRIOR to beginning the action is more important then your status DURING the action (which is what is being stated in regards to trip...you're still prone until you get up, making you immune to further trips) then it seems to invalidate the need to make concentration checks... right?
Take yourslef away from this conversation, and think about the mechanics in an abstract and logical way.
A causes B. B interrupts A, but happens before A ever occurs. If something is created by something, but happens because of something, but before it occurs, I'm pretty sure a black hole opens up and swallows the galaxy.
Goofing aside, If I can't be tripped because I'm prone until after the action that supposedly interrupts my action, then I'm not technically spellcasting until after I get an attack of opportunity on me. I'm not making a concentration check because of a quantum mechanic AoO.
That's my problem. Frankly I don't care if a single person can trip-lock or not, two can do it just fine either way (completely invalidating the "its not FAIR!" argument).
The AoO doesn't happen specifically before the action ever occurs (see Jason's last post on this thread--it's just easier to adjudicate that way). The action starts, it triggers an AoO, the action finishes. As such, the AoO "interrupts" the normal flow of the round. It does not cancel the triggering event, unless the AoO itself in some way prevents the action from continuing.
Bringing spellcasting into the equation is not a good idea--it has a specific subset of rules for handling concentration checks and that rule does not apply to most other AoO situations.
Hey, just thought of something. Attacking while prone is possible, although with a -4 to melee attacks, right?
Hypothetical situation: two characters (A and B, both proficient in tripping) fighting. Let's imagine that A trips B, then B trips A from a prone position.
Now what? Does B stand and risk an AOO or does he stay prone and full-attacks a prone opponent, offseting his -4 by the -4 to his opponent's AC? Perhaps he'll choose the full-attack. Perhaps both will. From an external point of view, I'm looking at a fight between two worms, wiggling around on the ground, none of them wanting to risk standing up and incurring an attack of opportunity (and losing a full-attack). Besides, while prone, they gain +4 AC vs ranged attack.
From real-life, we know what a match between two Grapple-specialists look like. Now, after having opened this can of worms, we know how a fight between two Trip-happy characters looks like ;-)
The AoO doesn't happen specifically before the action ever occurs (see Jason's last post on this thread--it's just easier to adjudicate that way). The action starts, it triggers an AoO, the action finishes. As such, the AoO "interrupts" the normal flow of the round. It does not cancel the triggering event, unless the AoO itself in some way prevents the action from continuing.
Bringing spellcasting into the equation is not a good idea--it has a specific subset of rules for handling concentration checks and that rule does not apply to most other AoO situations.
Can't help but disagree with you here. The line of cause-effect shouldn't be blurred in this manner, and its inconsistent with other in-game rules (which is why I referenced concentration checks).
Using a different example, what happens if I go to pick up an item? it provokes, and the response it to disarm me of the item I'm picking up? According to that ruling this is now mechanically impossible because my status PRIOR to the AoO is more important then my status DURING it.
A picks up an item, triggering an AoO for DOING so.
B responds with a disarm attempt, which fizzles because technically A hasn't used his action yet.
Last I checked, bending over doesn't provoke.
The CAUSE of something MUST happen BEFORE any effect of that action can occur. You MUST be trying to stand before provoking an attack, you MUST be grabbing an item from the ground before provoking. You MUST be casting a spell BEFORE provoking. No AoO can occur BEFORE the provoking action, or none of them make any logical sense. Why this would be the only mechanic in this whole game to not function that way is beyond me.
The CAUSE of something MUST happen BEFORE any effect of that action can occur. You MUST be trying to stand before provoking an attack, you MUST be grabbing an item from the ground before provoking. You MUST be casting a spell BEFORE provoking. No AoO can occur BEFORE the provoking action, or none of them make any logical sense. Why this would be the only mechanic in this whole game to not function that way is beyond me.
The movement from prone to standing isn't instantaneous. You can trigger an AoO when you start to rise, but before you gain the "standing" condition.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's simply not how the mechanics work for Pathfinder. Spellcasting isn't inconsistent (see my earlier posts) but rather a more detailed sub-rule; it doesn't break the existing AoO rules in any way. This is not the only mechanic in the whole game to function this way--it's how every AoO works. Indeed, there are only a few actions (Readied actions, Immediate actions) of which I know that function as actual Interruptions (i.e. cancellations) to actions.
The interpretation you have for Disarm vs. picking up an item is exactly correct--you cannot disarm the target because he hasn't picked up the item yet. He tried to pick up the item, and you used the wrong action to interrupt, i.e. disarm, since he doesn't have the item yet. The right action would be bull rush--you are trying to prevent the target from picking up the item, and so move him 5' away from the item. As his Move action can no longer complete (the item is too far away), you have successfully interrupted his action.
There is a way to do exactly what you want to do, it's just not Disarming.
The CAUSE of something MUST happen BEFORE any effect of that action can occur. You MUST be trying to stand before provoking an attack, you MUST be grabbing an item from the ground before provoking. You MUST be casting a spell BEFORE provoking. No AoO can occur BEFORE the provoking action, or none of them make any logical sense. Why this would be the only mechanic in this whole game to not function that way is beyond me.The movement from prone to standing isn't instantaneous. You can trigger an AoO when you start to rise, but before you gain the "standing" condition.
I've seen that mentioned a few times, and it seems like a lame duck to me.
the process of grabbing an item off the ground isn't instantaneous either.
Please respond to that ENTIRE paragraph. The ruling either works or it does not.
The act of STANDING is what provokes the AoO. From the SRD
Stand Up
Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity.You are standing up. That is the action that provokes. Just like when you GRAB an item from the ground, the grabbing is what provokes.
The game is fundamentally built on gamist principles. You can hide or ignore it at times, but how the system is written is built on layers of abstraction.
At times the abstraction has to snap to grid and you need to let go of having a truly fine grained, analog experience of events. Cause and effect can only be tracked so far before the system becomes tedious and impractical. At some point a binary either/or bracketing has to happen and causality gets rounded to the nearest whole number.
With a game you can never truly escape the meta.
Exactly. There are game systems that get to a finer level of detail (Suzerain's Mojo Rules, for instance, track actions to the 1/10th of a second). If this is the level of detail you are looking for in a combat system, Pathfinder is always going to fail...and I'm okay with that! When I want crazy cinematic stop-action sequences in my games, I play a different rule set. When I want enough rules to tell the story and move on, I play Pathfinder.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's simply not how the mechanics work for Pathfinder. Spellcasting isn't inconsistent (see my earlier posts) but rather a more detailed sub-rule; it doesn't break the existing AoO rules in any way. This is not the only mechanic in the whole game to function this way--it's how every AoO works. Indeed, there are only a few actions (Readied actions, Immediate actions) of which I know that function as you describe.
The interpretation you have for Disarm vs. picking up an item is exactly correct--you cannot disarm the target because he hasn't picked up the item yet. He tried to pick up the item, and you used the wrong action to interrupt, i.e. disarm, since he doesn't have the item yet. The right action would be bull rush--you are trying to prevent the target from picking up the item, and so move him 5' away from the item. As his Move action can no longer complete (the item is too far away), you have successfully interrupted his action.
There is a way to do exactly what you want to do, it's just not Disarming.
Actually, what I want to do is knock the item out of his hand as a reaction to him picking the item up, which the game rules supposedly allows me to do.
This example of game mechanics is absurd. Deliberately obtuse, abstract, and intentionally awkward, I hope that this changes at some point in the future officially but I can't say that I'd ever play it the way its written.
As an aside I'd like to commend everyone here for remaining civil through this discussion. That doesn't happen often and its good to see.
Actually, what I want to do is knock the item out of his hand as a reaction to him picking the item up, which the game rules supposedly allows me to do.
This example of game mechanics is absurd. Deliberately obtuse, abstract, and intentionally awkward, I hope that this changes at some point in the future officially but I can't say that I'd ever play it the way its written.
As an aside I'd like to commend everyone here for remaining civil through this discussion. That doesn't happen often and its good to see.
Agreed on the civility...it's always nice to be able to have an intelligent conversation about our hobby without devolving into silliness and name-calling.
I noted in an earlier post that folks wanting a mechanical solution (without just house-ruling the mechanics) to this could actually introduce feats to handle these situations--the desired effects are valuable enough that requiring an Immediate action could be the price paid for the effect. Jason also noted in his last post that having these results require an action is a logical progression.
P.S. And I just noticed that a bull rush to stop someone from picking up an item isn't possible--bull rush requires a Standard or Full-Round action and so cannot be used as an AoO.
I don't so much want a more in-depth game system. I want an elegant rules set, one that supports the story and is quick, adaptible, and efficient.
I'm comfortable with the meta-game, and I don't think that asking for a rational and explanable sequence of events during combat is being unreasonable. If anything I feel like a system that uses causality like this is being unfair to both the players and the GM. If I can't describe an event happening in good narrative I have failed my players.
You cannot describe this sequence of events in good narrative.
A mage casting a fireball can be explained. (Mage casts, Fireball occurs) A warrior striking with a sword can be explained ( Warrior swings and hits the enemy).
The limitations on AoO's cannot be explained (He bends over and grabs a wand from the ground, you lash out with your sword and succesfully knock the wand out of his hands, but suddenly the wand is in his hands because he actually JUST picked it up).
If this is how AoO's are going to be treated they should really just disallow Manuevers as AoO's rather then go into this level of abstract rules.
I don't so much want a more in-depth game system. I want an elegant rules set, one that supports the story and is quick, adaptible, and efficient.
I'm comfortable with the meta-game, and I don't think that asking for a rational and explanable sequence of events during combat is being unreasonable. If anything I feel like a system that uses causality like this is being unfair to both the players and the GM. If I can't describe an event happening in good narrative I have failed my players.
You cannot describe this sequence of events in good narrative.
A mage casting a fireball can be explained. (Mage casts, Fireball occurs) A warrior striking with a sword can be explained ( Warrior swings and hits the enemy).
The limitations on AoO's cannot be explained (He bends over and grabs a wand from the ground, you lash out with your sword and succesfully knock the wand out of his hands, but suddenly the wand is in his hands because he actually JUST picked it up).
If this is how AoO's are going to be treated they should really just disallow Manuevers as AoO's rather then go into this level of abstract rules.
The problem with disallowing them as an AoO (and with my reread, the only valid ones are Disarm, Sunder, and Trip) because they do have in-game uses outside these cases. Disarming a person retrieving an item from a pack, tripping someone moving out of a threatened square, and sundering a scroll as it's being activated for instance.
As a GM, it is within your right to extrapolate mechanics as needed to support the story (recalling "The Most Important Rule" for Pathfinder*). If a player wanted to keep someone from picking up an item, for instance, one could allow an attack against the item to knock it a few squares away. I would favor this over a Disarm from a cinematic perspective--in my "movie" the hero would kick the gun away, not wait for the bad guy to pick up the gun, then knock it out of his hand again.
*The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
The limitations on AoO's cannot be explained (He bends over and grabs a wand from the ground, you lash out with your sword and succesfully knock the wand out of his hands, but suddenly the wand is in his hands because he actually JUST picked it up).
I hate to be contrary (... and I could sidetrack the discussion, and I could just be wrong), but I didn't think that was allowed, either. When Joe the Dire picks up his staff of game-breaking invulnerability, I thought the AoO went off before he had the item. Beginning the act (of picking up an item, in this case) sets off the AoO, not completion of the act.
I may be wrong, but I'm consistent...
The limitations on AoO's cannot be explained (He bends over and grabs a wand from the ground, you lash out with your sword and succesfully knock the wand out of his hands, but suddenly the wand is in his hands because he actually JUST picked it up).I hate to be contrary (... and I could sidetrack the discussion, and I could just be wrong), but I didn't think that was allowed, either. When Joe the Dire picks up his staff of game-breaking invulnerability, I thought the AoO went off before he had the item. Beginning the act (of picking up an item, in this case) sets off the AoO, not completion of the act.
I may be wrong, but I'm consistent...
Your interpretation is correct per the application of mechanics supported by Jason. I believe Nathan is pointing this out as a perceived problem with the rules, not an inconsistency between disarm and trip.
I'm a little abashed to admit that I'd missed Jason's last post, thanks for pointing it out Erian.
I don't really understand why there's such concern about having actions mid-action as we already seem to have that.
I understand it mechanically, but it feels a bit too much like Magic: The Gathering and the Chain for me to be comfortable with it in my RPG. Actually, the Chain makes more sense mechanically because if you interrupt something, while it happens before the action resolves the action is still considered.
I'd be interested in seeing something official from the Pathfinder people about how to handle situations when the rules are this contrary with things that should be, as Mirror, Mirror said, "Obviously Possible".
There's a lot of lip service paid to creating an immersive storytelling experience while roleplaying, and I don't like thinking of that as being contrary to playing "by the rules".
You can certainly always fall back on rule 0, but do we have to substitute a sense of reality to have a coherent rules set?
I hate to say this, but could someone define Gamist for me? I understand that it implies a greater concern for tight game mechanics, even to the point of abstraction in the cause of being mechanically sound, but this is the first internet message board for RPG's I've posted on and I'm still getting accustomed to the lingo.
Actually, what I want to do is knock the item out of his hand as a reaction to him picking the item up, which the game rules supposedly allows me to do.
Well, technically, that isn't an AoO, it is a "readied action", which would work as you describe and like.
I believe that part of the problem is how AoOs are being perceived.
For trip: If you are introducing reality and real world experience, then you need to do so for more than just the very narrow segment on using an AoO to trip a prone person.
That is, it shouldn't take 6 seconds to stand up from prone, so what is the rest of you move action doing (30 feet for most)?
Would it be easier to percieve that when the target starts to get up you trip them again, but as they are already mostly still prone they have less far to fall and get down much faster than from standing, and then they use that momentum that you just gave them to stand up with the rest of their 30' move?
For the disarm: of a mage going for a wand: you don't have time in your AoO to do exactly what you want, simply time to take advantage of the opening that your opponent has left you, so you can get in a hit or a trip, but not disarm as the move towards the wand triggered the AoO, not the picking up of the wand.
Nathan, you said in an earlier post that you have had military unarmed combat training. When you spar, do you conciously plan every move that you make or is a lot of it muscle memory that kicks in?
I recently did some sparring with swords and managed to use a AoO to take my more experienced opponent's sword away from them. I didn't conciously decide to do so when I saw an opening, my muscle memory kicked in an did it. I still can't remember the exact sequence that I used to do it, even after looking at photos of the match.
I'm a little abashed to admit that I'd missed Jason's last post, thanks for pointing it out Erian.
I don't really understand why there's such concern about having actions mid-action as we already seem to have that.
I understand it mechanically, but it feels a bit too much like Magic: The Gathering and the Chain for me to be comfortable with it in my RPG. Actually, the Chain makes more sense mechanically because if you interrupt something, while it happens before the action resolves the action is still considered.
I'd be interested in seeing something official from the Pathfinder people about how to handle situations when the rules are this contrary with things that should be, as Mirror, Mirror said, "Obviously Possible".
There's a lot of lip service paid to creating an immersive storytelling experience while roleplaying, and I don't like thinking of that as being contrary to playing "by the rules".
You can certainly always fall back on rule 0, but do we have to substitute a sense of reality to have a coherent rules set?
I hate to say this, but could someone define Gamist for me? I understand that it implies a greater concern for tight game mechanics, even to the point of abstraction in the cause of being mechanically sound, but this is the first internet message board for RPG's I've posted on and I'm still getting accustomed to the lingo.
No problem--this thread has bobbed along for quite some time now!
I've never played Magic and am not sure what the Chain is, so I can't comment on that, but for me the mechanics as currently noted are simply the easiest way to handle AoO across the board. We could have separate rules for various situations, but that gets too complicated for my tastes. Think about this as a situation--you change the AoO to occur after the action that provokes. So, now that person that has stood can be tripped, or that person that picked up the item can be disarmed. But it also means that person casting the spell already cast the spell and so cannot be interrupted. You could make separate AoO mechanics for spellcasting and such, but again that's too complicated for my tastes. An alternate route would be to rule that the person taking the AoO determines when it occurs, but this places a great deal of game mechanical power into what should be a minor (i.e. Free) action. It also introduces all sorts of variables for table arguments.
As for defining "gamist" that can be an whole new thread (and there are several you can search for). The simplest way I think of it is this--a gamist approach puts enough mechanics in place to tell the story, then moves on; a narrativist approach always favors the story over mechanics; a simulationist approach favors making the game as close to reality as possible.
We could have separate rules for various situations, but that gets too complicated for my tastes. Think about this as a situation--you change the AoO to occur after the action that provokes. So, now that person that has stood can be tripped, or that person that picked up the item can be disarmed. But it also means that person casting the spell already cast the spell and so cannot be interrupted. You could make separate AoO mechanics for spellcasting and such, but again that's too complicated for my tastes.IMO, that is the situation we are in RIGHT NOW. A seperate rule on AoO's DURING an action (spells) vs BEFORE (combat maneuvers).
As has already been noted, it is not a separate rule. There is a specific sub-rule for how concentration works, and it affects all actions requiring concentration. An AoO vs. spellcasting and an AoO to trip vs. standing occur in exactly the same action sequence. Spellcasting can be interrupted because it requires concentration. Standing from prone cannot be interrupted because it does not require concentration.
The rules are consistent.
EDIT: Quoting Jason's response where he details the action sequence in case other folks missed it...
The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
IMO, that is the situation we are in RIGHT NOW. A seperate rule on AoO's DURING an action (spells) vs BEFORE (combat maneuvers).
Deinol posted part of this a page back:
A Standing Up
1. Character begins standing up.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes standing up.
B Moving Through Threatened square
1. Character begins to move to new square.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character moves to new square.
C Casting Spell
1. Character begins casting spell.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes the spell.
D Picking something up
1. Character reaches for something (ground or pack or etc.)
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character picks up / retrieves the item.
This mechanic looks consistent to me. You start the action, the AoO occurs, and if possible you finish the action.
Now, if you drop due to damage, you don't finish the action. If you get hit by someone with the Stand Still feat while moving thru a threatened square, you don't get to keep moving. etc.
I'm a little abashed to admit that I'd missed Jason's last post, thanks for pointing it out Erian.
I don't really understand why there's such concern about having actions mid-action as we already seem to have that.
I understand it mechanically, but it feels a bit too much like Magic: The Gathering and the Chain for me to be comfortable with it in my RPG. Actually, the Chain makes more sense mechanically because if you interrupt something, while it happens before the action resolves the action is still considered.
I'd be interested in seeing something official from the Pathfinder people about how to handle situations when the rules are this contrary with things that should be, as Mirror, Mirror said, "Obviously Possible".
There's a lot of lip service paid to creating an immersive storytelling experience while roleplaying, and I don't like thinking of that as being contrary to playing "by the rules".
You can certainly always fall back on rule 0, but do we have to substitute a sense of reality to have a coherent rules set?
I hate to say this, but could someone define Gamist for me? I understand that it implies a greater concern for tight game mechanics, even to the point of abstraction in the cause of being mechanically sound, but this is the first internet message board for RPG's I've posted on and I'm still getting accustomed to the lingo.
No problem--this thread has bobbed along for quite some time now!
I've never played Magic and am not sure what the Chain is, so I can't comment on that, but for me the mechanics as currently noted are simply the easiest way to handle AoO across the board. We could have separate rules for various situations, but that gets too complicated for my tastes. Think about this as a situation--you change the AoO to occur after the action that provokes. So, now that person that has stood can be tripped, or that person that picked up the item can be disarmed. But it also means that person casting the spell already cast the...
I guess I don't see the problem with "middle-ground" actions. I think it makes more sense for AoO's to occur mid-action rather then post action because of the timing. It makes more sense that a concentration check is called for from damage during spellcasting, but also that you could knock someone prone again while they try to stand or knock an item away when they grasp it to me then not. I'd like to see the action already started but not necessarily completed until the AoO is resolved.
(caps coming for emphasis)
The rules SEEM to support this at first glance. Its the CASTING that provokes, the STANDING, the PICKING UP. My view of the mechanics is that the thing that causes the AoO must be in progress... just as bending over doesn't cause an AoO, PICKING UP does so it must be in hand before the attack happens.
I think maybe the problem is the AoO as a whole. If you're going to have an action that is inherently mid-action but does not allow it to interrupt actions it seems counter-intuitive to me. In my mind, the only one of these actions that occurs correctly is the spell-casting because of its ability to be interrupted.
Addressing the real life combat point made by Mistwalker, muscle memory plays a large role in fighting, but the better fighters keep their wits about them. I was trying to steer the conversation away from real life analogies, though.
Your examples of play aren't exactly correct though, Mistwalker, as only one of your A's actually provokes an attack of opportunity.... casting a spell. Reaching for an item doesn't provoke, picking it up does... Beginning to stand doesn't provoke an AoO, Standing up from Prone does.
I have read Jason's post, and I DO see where he said the technical timing. However, note that he also said right after that that the rules pushed it to before for the sake of simplicity.
"The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip."
In case you missed it, this means that they did NOT want a condition to be in the middle, preffering to keep things simpler by making it binary, and so pushed the timing to before the action.
Which is inconsistant. The technical "middle" timing is used for spellcasting, but the rule adjusted "before" is used for combat actions
No, it's consistent. Jason specifically called out that the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it occurs. The simplest way to adjudicate the effect is to consider the provoking action incomplete when the AoO occurs. If the AoO can in some way stop the action, that is also taken into account. This is preferable because systems with interrupt actions can get very complex. Specifically for spellcasting, and other actions that require concentration, they have a sub-rule to cover how this works. This is already one level of complexity, and Jason is saying they don't want another level of complexity for actions that don't require concentration.
I'm not sure how to say this any other way than what's already been said over the last several pages. I understand that you disagree, but this is how the rules function.
I guess I don't see the problem with "middle-ground" actions. I think it makes more sense for AoO's to occur mid-action rather then post action because of the timing. It makes more sense that a concentration check is called for from damage during spellcasting, but also that you could knock someone prone again while they try to stand or knock an item away when they grasp it to me then not. I'd like to see the action already started but not necessarily completed until the AoO is resolved.
I think working from that (in consultation with your players so everyone is on the same page) and building mechanics for how this will play out in your games is fine. It simply has to be understood that such is outside the standard rules and so, for instance, shouldn't be used in a PFS game.
I've played in games with interrupts before, and the "I interrupt your interrupt" business just gets mind-numbing. As such, I prefer the simpler approach Pathfinder has taken.
Mok, thanks for the post. That was relevant and informative, and I appreciate it.
I guess I'm an amalgam of the two. I grew up playing first and second edition D and D, and I've worked in the wargaming industry (I was with Games Workshop for a time) so a lot of that makes good personal sense to me as I've played Chainmail (both editions) Warhammer, etc...
I saw a lot of significant change in 3rd ed, but most of the core system still seemed in place to me, just engineered differently for uniformity and simplicity of play. Thac0 never went away, really, it just turned around and built up so to speak.
Erian, I don't think it requires the formation of a new type of action... and I find interrupt chains to be mind-numbing myself so I can see where you are coming from there.
I think that the sequence of events could be simplified without the inclusion of new rules. Playing it the way I think it should work doesn't require the inclusion of any new rules to patch the system together because it doesn't break the system... but seeing as it works this way RAW I think the RAW should be amended to reflect these rules. Its not standing up that provokes, its beginning to stand up. It's not picking up an item, its reaching for an item. While that is probably the intent of the rules, its just not what's being said.
Addressing the real life combat point made by Mistwalker, muscle memory plays a large role in fighting, but the better fighters keep their wits about them. I was trying to steer the conversation away from real life analogies, though.
I didn't realize that, as both yourself and others have mentioned real world examples in this thread. I did try and keep it as general as possible. Yes, the better fighters do keep their wits about them, but that doesn't really modify the split second timing needed for an AoO (let's face it, with multiple attacks, from multiple people, all within 6 seconds, an AoO is a split second decision, make the attack situation).
Your examples of play aren't exactly correct though, Mistwalker, as only one of your A's actually provokes an attack of opportunity.... casting a spell. Reaching for an item doesn't provoke, picking it up does... Beginning to stand doesn't provoke an AoO, Standing up from Prone does.
Yes and No. The AoO is provoked as you start the action (as per Jason), but to keep things simple, it is resolved before the action is completed. I read that as the AoO occurs just as you start, when you commit yourself to the doing xxx, when you leave yourself open for a very small amount of time.
The reaching for the item is the trigger for the AoO because you are going to be picking up that item. It is the small amount of time that you have left yourself open after you have commited yourself to picking up that item.
The AoO on spell casting does not cause the concentration check. That concentration check is required if the AoO hits and does damage - with the damage being the trigger for the concentration check.
My major objection is that, again IMO, the rule being discussed was created to prevent a percieved exploit in a "gamist" frame, and it runs counter to intuition and realism (simulationism, if you will). What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, so being able to disrupt a spellcaster with an AoO means you should be allowed to disrupt any other action with an AoO. Deciding to trip or disarm should not affect the base rule, ESPECIALLY then the action provoking should logically be countered by the action (trip someone trying to stand, disarm someone trying to retrieve).
If it were a bigger gamebreaking issue that defied reality by relying on rule exploits (3.0 Bag O' Rats, this means you), then I would be just as strongly FOR inserting an explicit rule to prevent the action. I would see the exploit as "gamist". I just so happen to fall on the other side of the line on this issue.
But the rule being discussed was not put in place to stop a perceived exploit--as Jason noted it is in place because it's a simple solution. This isn't something that was dreamed up just to stop trip-locking. It's how all AoO function. The fact that it does indeed stop trip-locking is incidental to the primary reason for existence, i.e. simplicity.
You can disrupt other actions than spellcasting with an AoO--you simply have to use the AoO properly (or have the right feats) in order to do so.
I think the RAW should be amended to reflect these rules. Its not standing up that provokes, its beginning to stand up. It's not picking up an item, its reaching for an item. While that is probably the intent of the rules, its just not what's being said.
How am I supposed to feel original when you ninja me with a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem?
:)
Perhaps add in a phrase before the table stating that initiating the following actions causes AoOs.
Erian, I don't think it requires the formation of a new type of action... and I find interrupt chains to be mind-numbing myself so I can see where you are coming from there.
I think that the sequence of events could be simplified without the inclusion of new rules. Playing it the way I think it should work doesn't require the inclusion of any new rules to patch the system together because it doesn't break the system... but seeing as it works this way RAW I think the RAW should be amended to reflect these rules. Its not standing up that provokes, its beginning to stand up. It's not picking up an item, its reaching for an item. While that is probably the intent of the rules, its just not what's being said.
Oh, I'm not advocating the creation of a new action type--I believe this would be handled as either a Free or Immediate action. I advocate documenting changes (or alternate understandings) of rules so that everyone involved in the game is sure to be on the same page as this minimizes the chance of mid-game rules arguments.
Addressing the real life combat point made by Mistwalker, muscle memory plays a large role in fighting, but the better fighters keep their wits about them. I was trying to steer the conversation away from real life analogies, though.I didn't realize that, as both yourself and others have mentioned real world examples in this thread. I did try and keep it as general as possible. Yes, the better fighters do keep their wits about them, but that doesn't really modify the split second timing needed for an AoO (let's face it, with multiple attacks, from multiple people, all within 6 seconds, an AoO is a split second decision, make the attack situation).
Your examples of play aren't exactly correct though, Mistwalker, as only one of your A's actually provokes an attack of opportunity.... casting a spell. Reaching for an item doesn't provoke, picking it up does... Beginning to stand doesn't provoke an AoO, Standing up from Prone does.Yes and No. The AoO is provoked as you start the action (as per Jason), but to keep things simple, it is resolved before the action is completed. I read that as the AoO occurs just as you start, when you commit yourself to the doing xxx, when you leave yourself open for a very small amount of time.
The reaching for the item is the trigger for the AoO because you are going to be picking up that item. It is the small amount of time that you have left yourself open after you have commited yourself to picking up that item.
The AoO on spell casting does not cause the concentration check. That concentration check is required if the AoO hits and does damage - with the damage being the trigger for the concentration check.
hmm.. ok.
A profesional fencer can make several aimed, precise attacks a second. A professional volleyball player can serve a ball that touches ground in only two or three seconds. I think that, in real world terms athletes are capable of amazing things in very short ammounts of time, and that its probably more possible then not.
The reasons I first referenced realistic combat was to discourage it from being used on one side or another, as in real life any of these things could be true, and its actually a disimilar thing to a mechanical discussion and therefore a poor grading factor. I didn't want anyone "claiming reality" for their side... Because most of us like movies, and that's where we get the majority of our visual reference on fighting... which tends to be hideously innacurate.
I think the creative intent from Paizo is in line with what you're saying, but the RAW doesn't delineate the causes as you're saying them. According to the rules, it's the Standinf and the Picking Up that provoke, not the start of the action.
I get the concentration bit, I merely meant to point out that you're getting hit mid-action and there's a chance for interruption.
Well then, Mistwalker, Erian and I are all in agreement on that much at least... the way it's supposed to work should be spelled out a little more clearly in the RAW and then anyone that wants to house rule it should go ahead and do so. Alright... all that, and no bloodshed!
A Standing Up
Issue: The character is considered prone until they have stood up. This is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (standing) takes place.
It is initiating the action standing up, not standing up that causes the AoO (see Jason's comment)
B Moving Through Threatened square
Issue: The character is considered to be in the starting square until they move. that is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (moving) takes place.
It is initiating the action, leaving the threatened square that causes the AoO (see Jason's comment). And it would be pretty silly to not have it happen there, otherwise if they step away they are out of range and you can't do an AoO.
C Casting Spell
Issue: The character is considered to be currently casting. They are not the same as they were before the triggering action (casting), but in the process, as per concentration rules.
It is initiating the spell, starting to cast it, that causes the AoO (see Jason's comment). As casting a spell take longer than a physical AoO, it makes sense for there to be the possibiity of an interruption of the spell due to damage (talking with 3' of steel in your stomach is hard, let alone casting a spell).
D Picking something up
Issue: The character is considered not holding the item until they have retrieved it. This is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (retrieving) takes place.
Again, it is going for the item that triggers it, not picking it up (see Jason's comment)
For AoOs to work, there has to be a consistent rule for when they happen, preferably a simple rule and easy to apply. Do you have an alternative to offer that is as simple, consistent and easy to apply? This isn't snark, I am curious.
Well then, Mistwalker, Erian and I are all in agreement on that much at least... the way it's supposed to work should be spelled out a little more clearly in the RAW and then anyone that wants to house rule it should go ahead and do so. Alright... all that, and no bloodshed!
I wonder if we can get credit in the next printing?
:)
I hate to say this, but could someone define Gamist for me? I understand that it implies a greater concern for tight game mechanics, even to the point of abstraction in the cause of being mechanically sound, but this is the first internet message board for RPG's I've posted on and I'm still getting accustomed to the lingo.
I think many people have many definitions, but for me, "gamist" refers to someone who makes decisions about the game based on the rules implementation - their goal is to have playable rules. The rules don't have to be realistic, they don't have to make sense, they don't have to be fair or balanced. They simply have to work well and support quick and easy play.
I'm not saying that to be negative, and I'm not saying that "gamist" players have no interest in that other stuff. I'm simply defining the core meaning of the word. Like everything else, there are shades of gray.
On the other end of the scale is "simulationist", which refers to someone who makes decisions about the game based on the real world - their goal is to have realistic rules. The rules don't have to be easy, and they don't even have to work well. But they do have to make sense (at least to the simulationist).
These two mindsets frequently argue over rules, just like on this thread. Simulationists say you should be able to keep someone down by repeatedly tripping them, and you should be able to do this without letting them stand up and attack you first. They claim you can do this in the real world (and they are right). Gamists say that this is unfair, results in trip-locking and effectively taking one enemy out of the fight (and they are right).
Both sides are correct. The rules support the gamists' arguemnt, and the simulationists are arguing about how those rules are unrealistic.
It's all great fun, really.
You know? I'm kind of partial to AoO's ==> DAMAGE DEALING only, though - if we're to keep RAW as is and AoO's more or less alone. It's the most simple change that addresses all fronts.
Action interruption *should* probably get some sort of alternate rules like Concentration/spellcasting though as *realistically* they can interrupted, and you *could* keep kicking/knocking silly someone that's on the ground in front of you (bad, BAD place to fight from). Since there are feats that grant an *almost* automatic win on this, it'd be a good idea to allow the "concentration" check equivalent for the poor sod's just trying to pick themselves up off the ground. Hell - just make it one of the uses of Acrobatics, clearly detailed mind you, and be done!
I've got no equivalent skill-check, though for a disarm.
Maybe just a flat dex-check set vs. DC of 10 + whatever damage inflicted is? Or a flat 15 period (regardless of damage)?
yeah ... definitely straying from "rule" though. I *do* have a related topic up in the Suggestions area if anyone wants to posit crunch on this sort of thing, though.