If there is a rule, point me to it and we can discuss it, but I can't find anything that supports your position.To me, just the general rules on attacks and AoO support his position. I've always seen it played that way going back through all of 3E and through lots of organized play, wherein someone will invariably bust you down on common rules misconceptions fast. It's one of the advantages of having greater reach.
I mean, if I'm 20' away from you and I cast a spell without casting defensively that provokes attacks of opportunity, you just can't take them unless you have 20' reach.
Exactly.
|
If there is a rule, point me to it and we can discuss it, but I can't find anything that supports your position.To me, just the general rules on attacks and AoO support his position. I've always seen it played that way going back through all of 3E and through lots of organized play, wherein someone will invariably bust you down on common rules misconceptions fast. It's one of the advantages of having greater reach.
I mean, if I'm 20' away from you and I cast a spell without casting defensively that provokes attacks of opportunity, you just can't take them unless you have 20' reach.
CMD/CMB is a new concept to Pathfinder, and an entire new rule set.
I look at it this way. If I am trying to grab your weapon, or fight unarmed, the attack of opportunity is on my exposing my untrained unarmed hand to your trained weapon.
In those cases, reach is irrelevant since my untrained action put me at risk for your attack.
Such things require planning and even though they won init they did not have time to set it up, and that was the first time I used that tactic against them.They're 15th+ level.. they've had time to figure out the basics.
Again your problem isn't that fighters as a class have problems, but that players can have problems.
Its good that you are working with your group to 'teach' them tactics, but perhaps you should have started them out at lower levels? If they've played up to 15th from 1st then I find it hard to believe that you never had an intelligent enemy with bigger reach before.
-James
I just remembered I did the disarm, trip, grapple, repeat thing to him in the first campaign, for an entire combat. I guess I need to do it again.
|
|
Exactly.If there is a rule, point me to it and we can discuss it, but I can't find anything that supports your position.To me, just the general rules on attacks and AoO support his position. I've always seen it played that way going back through all of 3E and through lots of organized play, wherein someone will invariably bust you down on common rules misconceptions fast. It's one of the advantages of having greater reach.
I mean, if I'm 20' away from you and I cast a spell without casting defensively that provokes attacks of opportunity, you just can't take them unless you have 20' reach.
Casting a spell is completely different than a combat maneuver.
Casting is a passive act you are doing that leaves you defenseless to someone else attacking you.
A combat maneuver is an offensive act that leaves you exposed to attack because you are moving into contact with the enemy without proper training on how to defend yourself.
To disarm/trip/etc...someone you have to initiate contact with them, and under new rules you roll an "attack" to do this using "CMB" vs "CMD", meaning you are moving something into a square, putting it at risk.
If there is a rule, I'll back down to citation. But a) it is an entirely new system and b) the example above isn't a combat maneuver.
The dragon does not have improved disarm, but you can't take am AoO unless the dragon is in hit range. The dragon(green wyrm, 3.5) had a reach of 20. I allowed him(the fighter) to get to within 15, and knocked the weapon away. I had a CMB of over 50 while his CMD is probably around 50. I am in AoW at the moment, so I had to rebuild the dragon.
I played a game tonight and I when the fighter charged in to attack the dragon I used my attack of opportunity to disarm him. Now he will probably get smart any get the lock gauntlets next time, but he can't keep up, with every new thing that comes up until after the fact.First, praise for posting an actual play scenario. It is too rare on her, and always useful.
Second, what type of dragon. I didn't see improved disarm as one of the normal feats when I was skimming dragons, but I was skimming and it may be specific to that dragon and certainly not illegal. Otherwise it would have provoked an AoO right back.
Also, without knowing the level and type of dragon, it's hard to tell what the respective CMB vs CMD should be. Fighters have the highest you can get, so if anyone can avoid a disarm, it would be them.
Quick draw is a must have fighter feat, imho, for weapon switching purposes if not for times like this. If they have it, they have succeeded in grounding the dragon or getting an AoO if he tries to fly off (in addition to the charge attack) which isn't bad.
See my other post. Reach IMH reading of the rules is not the same as reach weapons. They don't have the same limitations of where they can attack or risk of being disarmed. And being a part of the enemy, they would be subject to AoO.
So if the dragon attempted to disarm without improved the fighter should get an AoO on the claw trying to grab the weapon, and any damage dealt is added to the save DC for disarm.
But as I said I am open to a citation saying otherwise. The reach section in combat...
By the rules you have to be able to reach the enemy, which in game terms is the square it occupies. Otherwise you could trick an enemy into reaching out just to attack its limbs.
If there is a rule, point me to it and we can discuss it, but I can't find anything that supports your position.To me, just the general rules on attacks and AoO support his position. I've always seen it played that way going back through all of 3E and through lots of organized play, wherein someone will invariably bust you down on common rules misconceptions fast. It's one of the advantages of having greater reach.
I mean, if I'm 20' away from you and I cast a spell without casting defensively that provokes attacks of opportunity, you just can't take them unless you have 20' reach.
CMD/CMB is a new concept to Pathfinder, and an entire new rule set.
I look at it this way. If I am trying to grab your weapon, or fight unarmed, the attack of opportunity is on my exposing my untrained unarmed hand to your trained weapon.
In those cases, reach is irrelevant since my untrained action put me at risk for your attack.
It makes sense but there is no rule to support it, but since you insist.
PRD:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
The monster does not occupy(is not in) a square because he is reaching through it.
|
|
By the rules you have to be able to reach the enemy, which in game terms is the square it occupies. Otherwise you could trick an enemy into reaching out just to attack its limbs.
You aren't tricking anything. They are committing an act that exposes them to an attack of opportunity.
Normal attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunities. Two different issues.
By that logic, I can use reach to open a door and not risk getting hit by the poison dart.
A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells.Excellent advice.I like this alot. What are methods that work to get the PCs to not try and rest between every encounter. (Other than the artificial one of talking to the players out of game). Things like defending a city where the enemies keep coming and there is no time to rest would work. What has worked for others?
Another thing that I am considering is to provide a number of 'backstory' paths from the PCs to choose from. There will be usually 2-3 options per alignment/class/racial combination. Each of the backstories will come with a number of APG traits. The trick is that the 'weaker' classes will get more traits than the 'stronger' ones. I was also considering allotting differing point buy values for the different classes. Instead of telling the players "Rogue is terrible, don't play it", I bring the message that "If you play Rogue, you get all this cool stuff!". Thoughts?
The most common one I've run into is time constraints. I remember playing a Wizard in Shackled City and going through and entire adventure near the end (probably 20+ encounters) without any chance to rest at all. Portioning spells carefully became very important indeed!
With equal levels of optimization, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer will all by significantly more powerful than Bard, Rogue, and Monk.To this, I disagree. IMO, it should be "With equal levels of optimization, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer will fill significantly different roles than Bard, Rogue, and Monk."
IME a wizard that takes find trap when there is a rogue in the party is trying to step on the toes of the rogue. That spell is generally for rogue-less groups.
My current band of adventurers consists of a fighter, spell-less ranger, caviler, summoner, and wizard. I fully expect the wizard to take spells like find trap. I don't expect him to take spells like summon monster, since we have a summoner in the group.
Yet, the Wizard has access to Find Traps and Summon Monster and the various other spells that let them deal with traps as easily as a Rogue. Do you really prefer that the Rogue risk their life dealing with a trap than you expend a spell?
Yes, there's a degree of Devil's Advocate in that, but there's some point to it. Some players of spellcasters make it very plain they'd rather expend someone else's hit points than their spells.
Hopefully everyone here knows that a rogue's primary use to a party isn't opening locks right?
Rogues can open locks, wizards can open locks - neither invalidates the use of the other class.
|
|
If there is a rule, point me to it and we can discuss it, but I can't find anything that supports your position.To me, just the general rules on attacks and AoO support his position. I've always seen it played that way going back through all of 3E and through lots of organized play, wherein someone will invariably bust you down on common rules misconceptions fast. It's one of the advantages of having greater reach.
I mean, if I'm 20' away from you and I cast a spell without casting defensively that provokes attacks of opportunity, you just can't take them unless you have 20' reach.
CMD/CMB is a new concept to Pathfinder, and an entire new rule set.
I look at it this way. If I am trying to grab your weapon, or fight unarmed, the attack of opportunity is on my exposing my untrained unarmed hand to your trained weapon.
In those cases, reach is irrelevant since my untrained action put me at risk for your attack.
It makes sense but there is no rule to support it, but since you insist.
PRD:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
The monster does not occupy(is not in) a square because he is reaching through it.
This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.
And I believe trying to grab a weapon when you aren't trained puts your hand at risk, and that is the intent of the Attack of Opportunity.
I don't believe that all creatures with reach are immune to the negative effects of using combat maneuvers untrained.
By the rules you have to be able to reach the enemy, which in game terms is the square it occupies. Otherwise you could trick an enemy into reaching out just to attack its limbs.
You aren't tricking anything. They are committing an act that exposes them to an attack of opportunity.
Normal attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunities. Two different issues.
By that logic, I can use reach to open a door and not risk getting hit by the poison dart.
You misread my post. I am saying by your interpretation of the rules you could trick someone so you can hit them without moving in.
|
|
You misread my post. I am saying by your interpretation of the rules you could trick someone so you can hit them without moving in.By the rules you have to be able to reach the enemy, which in game terms is the square it occupies. Otherwise you could trick an enemy into reaching out just to attack its limbs.
You aren't tricking anything. They are committing an act that exposes them to an attack of opportunity.
Normal attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunities. Two different issues.
By that logic, I can use reach to open a door and not risk getting hit by the poison dart.
How? Claws are considered weapons for attacking and don't provoke an AoO by definition, theoretically because the opponent is to busy defending themselves from your attack to counter attack you.
My reading is that if you chose to use a Combat Maneuver without training, you make yourself vulnerable to an attack of opportunity while you are executing the maneuver.
This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.
Here you go again:
Attacks of Opportunity ---- Main section, not move specific.Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
The picture under that covers moving. What I quoted is the general rule for all attacks of opportunity unless you can find a quote that says otherwise.
edit:Notice that both quotes involve the enemy being in the threatened square. However an enemy only occupies a square that it is in, not a square that it can reach, unless you have a rules quote that says otherwise.
|
|
This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.And whom are you attacking with this AOO and with what?
If a medium sized adjacent enemy attempts to disarm you while you're using a longspear (or other reach weapon that doesn't threaten adjacent squares) can you hit them with the longspear with the AOO?
If you are hitting the 'arm' or whatever of the creature, why can't you ready an action to do so when they claw you with that arm?
Its the same argument. Whether or not you can make a certain attack against a certain target.
Sadly you cannot normally do so, as wrong as that is.
-James
I am not sure if I follow what you are trying to say.
By moving in to try and execute a combat maneuver, you put your limbs or your weapons at risk.
A longspear isn't a part of your body, but by rule as the defender I can attempt to counter your disarm by disarming you, if you have a longspear and if you fail by more than 10 you are disarmed. Why? Because you exposed your longspear and put it at risk.
What disarmed you? The defender who doesn't have reach, but can attack what you made vulnerable. Your failed interaction with your opponent, an action that you initiated as part of the combat maneuver while untrained, has left your weapon vulnerable.
In the case of a natural weapon, that is your arm.
The attacker is exposing themselves by moving in untrained, and so provoke an AoO.
You misread my post. I am saying by your interpretation of the rules you could trick someone so you can hit them without moving in.By the rules you have to be able to reach the enemy, which in game terms is the square it occupies. Otherwise you could trick an enemy into reaching out just to attack its limbs.
You aren't tricking anything. They are committing an act that exposes them to an attack of opportunity.
Normal attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunities. Two different issues.
By that logic, I can use reach to open a door and not risk getting hit by the poison dart.
How? Claws are considered weapons for attacking and don't provoke an AoO by definition, theoretically because the opponent is to busy defending themselves from your attack to counter attack you.
My reading is that if you chose to use a Combat Maneuver without training, you make yourself vulnerable to an attack of opportunity while you are executing the maneuver.
You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.And whom are you attacking with this AOO and with what?
If a medium sized adjacent enemy attempts to disarm you while you're using a longspear (or other reach weapon that doesn't threaten adjacent squares) can you hit them with the longspear with the AOO?
If you are hitting the 'arm' or whatever of the creature, why can't you ready an action to do so when they claw you with that arm?
Its the same argument. Whether or not you can make a certain attack against a certain target.
Sadly you cannot normally do so, as wrong as that is.
-James
I am not sure if I follow what you are trying to say.
By moving in to try and execute a combat maneuver, you put your limbs or your weapons at risk.
A longspear isn't a part of your body, but by rule as the defender I can attempt to counter your disarm by disarming you, if you have a longspear and if you fail by more than 10 you are disarmed. Why? Because you exposed your longspear and put it at risk.
What disarmed you? The defender who doesn't have reach, but can attack what you made vulnerable. Your failed interaction with your opponent, an action that you initiated as part of the combat maneuver while untrained, has left your weapon vulnerable.
In the case of a natural weapon, that is your arm.
The attacker is exposing themselves by moving in untrained, and so provoke an AoO.
He is saying if you can hit the limb as a part of an AoO then why can't you ready an action to do it anyway. Either the limb is a viable target or it is not for when it is reaching through squares or it is not.
|
|
This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.Here you go again:
Attacks of Opportunity ---- Main section, not move specific.Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
The picture under that covers moving. What I quoted is the general rule for all attacks of opportunity unless you can find a quote that says otherwise.
edit:Notice that both quotes involve the enemy being in the threatened square. However an enemy only occupies a square that it is in, not a square that it can reach, unless you have a rules quote that says otherwise.
Again, that is regarding threatened squares, not combat maneuvers.
It is a passive act to be at risk while acting near someone with a sword.
Think of it this way, if I stick my hand into a blender, it cuts me even though the blender lacks "reach".
If I reach in to take your weapon without training, or my leg to trip you, I'm putting it at risk.
If it were a reach weapon, I would be risking you countering me, despite not being within your reach, right? Well instead of a long spear, it's an arm.
|
|
He is saying if you can hit the limb as a part of an AoO then why can't you ready an action to do it anyway. Either the limb is a viable target or it is not for when it is reaching through squares or it is not.This is the rule for moving through a threatened square, not combat maneuvers. Moving through a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Acting in certain ways in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.And whom are you attacking with this AOO and with what?
If a medium sized adjacent enemy attempts to disarm you while you're using a longspear (or other reach weapon that doesn't threaten adjacent squares) can you hit them with the longspear with the AOO?
If you are hitting the 'arm' or whatever of the creature, why can't you ready an action to do so when they claw you with that arm?
Its the same argument. Whether or not you can make a certain attack against a certain target.
Sadly you cannot normally do so, as wrong as that is.
-James
I am not sure if I follow what you are trying to say.
By moving in to try and execute a combat maneuver, you put your limbs or your weapons at risk.
A longspear isn't a part of your body, but by rule as the defender I can attempt to counter your disarm by disarming you, if you have a longspear and if you fail by more than 10 you are disarmed. Why? Because you exposed your longspear and put it at risk.
What disarmed you? The defender who doesn't have reach, but can attack what you made vulnerable. Your failed interaction with your opponent, an action that you initiated as part of the combat maneuver while untrained, has left your weapon vulnerable.
In the case of a natural weapon, that is your arm.
The attacker is exposing themselves by moving in untrained, and so provoke an AoO.
By that logic you couldn't attack someone moving through a threatened square without a "readied" attack. The fact you need a feat and a readied action to counter attack has nothing to do with rules on attack of opportunities.
An attack action doesn't normally expose you to attack. A combat maneuver does.
Again, the alternative is all creatures with reach ignore the primary penalty of combat maneuvers. That seems ludicrous to me.
Again, the alternative is all creatures with reach ignore the primary penalty of combat maneuvers.
Qualify that: they ignore it when using combat maneuvers on opponents with lesser reach who are additionally far enough away that the reach deficit makes a difference.
This doesn't seem that ludicrous to me from a realism standpoint -- look at how huge a two inch reach advantage is in boxing, much less a five foot or greater reach advantage.
|
|
You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
Only if he was reaching out for a combat maneuver. Which is how how he provoked the attack of opportunity.
It is a person trying to take a weapon from a trained warrior without any skill or training in how to do so while protecting themselves.
Again, that is regarding threatened squares, not combat maneuvers.
It is a passive act to be at risk while acting near someone with a sword.
Think of it this way, if I stick my hand into a blender, it cuts me even though the blender lacks "reach".
If I reach in to take your weapon without training, or my leg to trip you, I'm putting it at risk.
If it were a reach weapon, I would be risking you countering me, despite not being within your reach, right? Well instead of a long spear, it's an arm.
Attacks of Opportunity can not be made without threatening a square. That is the point I am trying to make.
The attacks of opportunity section I quoted is all encompassing. Either you threaten someone or you don't.If you do threaten you get to make an AoO. If not then you don't. Certain actions provoke, but you still don't get to make the AoO if you can't reach the square the creature is occupying. You can play however you like, but you are wrong in this case, and you have yet to show that the attack of opportunity section only covers moving, and is not all encompassing.
PS:If it is worth it to make you and your group change the rule I will take it to the rules section, but if you will just houserule it back to your current playstyle anyway then we are just wasting time, and derailing this thread.
You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
Only if he was reaching out for a combat maneuver. Which is how how he provoked the attack of opportunity.
It is a person trying to take a weapon from a trained warrior without any skill or training in how to do so while protecting themselves.
Just to make things clear you are saying combat manuevers ignore the general rule of you having to threaten a square, but any other time you need strike back?
|
|
Just to make things clear you are saying combat manuevers ignore the general rule of you having to threaten a square, but any other time you need strike back?You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
Only if he was reaching out for a combat maneuver. Which is how how he provoked the attack of opportunity.
It is a person trying to take a weapon from a trained warrior without any skill or training in how to do so while protecting themselves.
I am saying things that combat manuevers, by their nature put you at risk.
I can drink a potion without provoking, provided I am not in a threatened sqaure. The act itself isn't moving me into contact with an enemy.
The threatened sqaure rules apply to that, threatened squares.
The combat manuever rules apply to combat maneuvers.
Two separate things.
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls. Ciretose, I really respect you but in this case I think that it's nitpicking.
Just to make things clear you are saying combat manuevers ignore the general rule of you having to threaten a square, but any other time you need strike back?You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
Only if he was reaching out for a combat maneuver. Which is how how he provoked the attack of opportunity.
It is a person trying to take a weapon from a trained warrior without any skill or training in how to do so while protecting themselves.
I am saying things that combat manuevers, by their nature put you at risk.
I can drink a potion without provoking, provided I am not in a threatened sqaure. The act itself isn't moving me into contact with an enemy.
The threatened sqaure rules apply to that, threatened squares.
The combat manuever rules apply to combat maneuvers.
Two separate things.
Attacks of Opportunities rules apply to all attacks of opportunities.
That is why they are in the attack of opportunity section.Attacks of opportunities and threatened squares can not be seperated. They work in unison. Why? -->You can not make the AoO unless the opponent is threatened. That is why everything is in the AoO section.
You have yet to show a rule that says someone can take an AoO if they don't threaten. All you have thrown up is conjecture, and opinion.
What is the difference between the grapple/sunder/trip/etc rules since they also provoked without the feats?
They were worded to get an attack of opportunity the same why so how could they get away with it and the 3.5 version could not. Before the 3.5 is not pathfinder arguement comes up I will say that if the wording is basically the same then the meaning is the same.
I will also go and add that there was a specific feat that allowed you to take an AoO that you could not reach if it tried to grapple you.
Rule of the game: Attacks of Opportunity:
Actions that Provoke Attacks of Opportunity
An action's description tells you whether it provokes an attack of opportunity. Table 8-2 in the Player's Handbook summarizes actions available to you in combat and notes which ones provoke attacks of opportunity.
The move and run actions are worth a special note. According to Table 8-2, both these actions provoke attacks of opportunity; however, the basic rule for movement and attacks of opportunity still applies. When you move from one square to another in combat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you leave a threatened square -- not when you enter a threatened square.
When You're Out of Reach
When no foes threaten you (that is, when you're not in any area that a foe threatens) you can get away with an action that normally provokes an attack of opportunity without actually provoking one. For example, if you have greater reach than your foe, you could try to sunder that foe's weapon or shield or disarm that foe without provoking an attack of opportunity provided that you stand outside the area the foe threatens while doing so.
Once again the wording on these things has not changed since 3.5.
|
|
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls. Ciretose, I really respect you but in this case I think that it's nitpicking.
I understand, we just disagree.
I can't believe that having reach negates the penalty of combat maneuvers, and my reading of the rule is that it doesn't.
I faq'ed it and hopefully a dev will answer.
|
|
Just to make things clear you are saying combat manuevers ignore the general rule of you having to threaten a square, but any other time you need strike back?You are completely misreading the post. Here is my point.
By your logic an enemy can be hit on its limbs if it reaches its limbs out.By that logic I could place an illusion to make him reach out. The fighter could ready an action to attack the limb. Now either the limb can be attacked or it can not. If the limb can be attacked anyway why do we have the strike back feat? If the limb can not be attacked the it can not be attacked. I see no rules that say attacks of opportunity allow you to hit body parts that can not be hit under any other circumstances.
PS:For the sake of the trick we will assume the fighter was invisible, and party had time to set it up.
Only if he was reaching out for a combat maneuver. Which is how how he provoked the attack of opportunity.
It is a person trying to take a weapon from a trained warrior without any skill or training in how to do so while protecting themselves.
I am saying things that combat manuevers, by their nature put you at risk.
I can drink a potion without provoking, provided I am not in a threatened sqaure. The act itself isn't moving me into contact with an enemy.
The threatened sqaure rules apply to that, threatened squares.
The combat manuever rules apply to combat maneuvers.
Two separate things.
Attacks of Opportunities rules apply to all attacks of opportunities.
That is why they are in the attack of opportunity section.Attacks of opportunities and threatened squares can not be seperated. They work in unison. Why? -->You can not make the AoO unless the opponent is threatened. That is why everything is in the AoO section.
You have yet to show a rule that says someone can take an AoO if they don't threaten. All you have thrown up is conjecture,...
First, calm down. We are two people who generally agree and in this instance we do not. No biggie, we FAQ and discuss.
I read that chart as a list of things you can or can not do while in (or moving through) a threatened square that will or won't provoke an AoO. It is about threatened squares, not AoO.
I read combat manuevers as always provoking, by their nature, unless stating otherwise or with a feat.
We disagree. No biggie. We are both intelligent people with different readings of the same rules.
|
|
Again, the alternative is all creatures with reach ignore the primary penalty of combat maneuvers.
Qualify that: they ignore it when using combat maneuvers on opponents with lesser reach who are additionally far enough away that the reach deficit makes a difference.
This doesn't seem that ludicrous to me from a realism standpoint -- look at how huge a two inch reach advantage is in boxing, much less a five foot or greater reach advantage.
I think of it this way.
Your dog has a bone.
You, as a human, have much better reach than your dog. But if you try to take that bone from that dog, you put yourself in a position for the dog to bite you without moving from it's position.
If I don't try to take the bone, the dog has to move to attack me if I'm not in it's threat radius. But when I literally put my hand next to the dogs mouth, it can bite me if I don't do so in a "trained" manner.
In the rule it says "Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver."
It does not provoke from anyone threatening you, as drinking a potion or casting a spell would. It does not put you at risk for AoO from anyone near you or threatening you. Only from the target.
If it was like casting a spell or drinking a potion, if you attempted a combat maneuver while surrounded, everyone would get an AoO against you.
But that isn't how it works.
You are doing something that puts you at risk from the target you are doing it to. Only the target gets an AoO because only the target has the opportunity to take advantage of your vulnerability while executing the maneuver.
OK, this has gone on for a little too long now.
A debate about space/reach and AoO is clearly a RULES DISCUSSION, and belongs in THAT forum, not here.
This thread addresses what I consider a really important topic, especially for newer GM's. I know it has been off topic for like a hundred posts now, but I think it is worth getting back to. Lets agree to disagree, or start another thread, and get back to the original topic. I would like to keep the ideas flowing, and see if anyone has anymore experiences to share.
I would like to add something I did in my campaign to keep control of the timeline. The party killed a Pathfinderized version of the Bluespawn Godslayer - basically a giant with the half-dragon template. This creature was the chosen of the dragon god, or to put it in mafia terms, a made man. The party had no right to kill this creature. Once the "dragon mafia" found out they sent a special hitman after the party. Since they were aware of the parties strengths and weaknesses, this was a half-dragon bebelith. It was selected because it had something to challenge every member of the party. I had the party encounter paladin/ranger NPC's who informed them that they were being followed by this creature, and that it would strike when they were weakest. From then on the party had to keep something in reserve, and fear that every shadow, every sound could be this creature waiting to strike. It switched the initiative from Team PC to Team Monster.
|
|
If I don't try to take the bone, the dog has to move to attack me if I'm not in it's threat radius. But when I literally put my hand next to the dogs mouth, it can bite me if I don't do so in a "trained" manner.
So you could pat the dog on the head, slap him upside the head, but not take his bone? Right?
Now let's get back to the guy with the longspear.
An opponent that is in a square that the guy does not threaten tries to do a maneuver on him provoking an AOO.
You are saying that the guy can take the attack, right?
-James
As to the dog, yes. The rules say you can attack without provoking, but if you attempt a combat manuever, the target (and only the target) gets an attack of opportunity.
The attack of opportunity from combat maneveurs isn't like other things that provoke, as it isn't opening you up to attacks of opportunity in general, like drinking a potion or moving through a square threatened by multiple creatures. It is saying the target of your CMD is entitled to an attack of opportunity, and only the target of the CMD.
As to the longspear, I'm not sure. I would probably rule no in that instance because the action causing the interaction occurs in an area your weapon can't reach, but that is definitely a gray area to me.
Playing hypothetical, in your version if a large creature who didn't have improved unarmed attacked without a weapons, he would suffer no attack of opportunity, right?
First, calm down. We are two people who generally agree and in this instance we do not. No biggie, we FAQ and discuss.
I read that chart as a list of things you can or can not do while in (or moving through) a threatened square that will or won't provoke an AoO. It is about threatened squares, not AoO.
I read combat manuevers as always provoking, by their nature, unless stating otherwise or with a feat.
We disagree. No biggie. We are both intelligent people with different readings of the same rules.
I am not upset.
1st. Paragraphs trump charts<-- That is also a rule. The paragraph says you have to be able to threaten to AoO.2nd, I posted evidence from a developer that agreed with me, and you skipped around my questions. We will continue from that point if you wish.
3rd, If I prove I am right will you change the way you play? I just don't want to waste my time debating so someone can say "You are right but I will not comply anyway. It is not because I care so much about what happens in your game*, but I don't see the point of showing someone the truth if they will just do what they want to do.
If so reply to my last post with the "Rules of the game situation" in it. If you don't care what the rules say then just say your group will continue to do it your way and we can end this threadjack without me having to make a rules thread on the matter.
*Not meant in a condescending way. I just don't want you to take it as me telling you how to play your game.
I now return everyone to the topic at hand. :)
For reach and AoO, I agree with Ciretose.
Page 199 of the core states that unless otherwise noted, combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity.
To me, this is the usual case of a specific rule trumps the general rule.
Combat maneuver rule trumps the general attack of opportunity rule.
The dragon in the example would still have had a chance to disarm the fighter. In the worst case, the dragon would have taken a penalty to it's attack roll of the damage the fighter did to it as it reached for him, if the fighter managed to hit.
@ Dire Mongoose. The amount of reach doesn't really matter. I do a bit of medieval sword fighting - including unarmed and dagger work - and on a regular basis, disarm a dagger armed opponent when I am unarmed. I have even disarmed an opponent using a german two-handed longsword.
@ james maissen. I would allow that longspear wielder to make an AoO with a gauntlet or unarmed (which would likely provoke an AoO from the attacker), but not with the longspear.
I do think that Citerose approach makes more sense, but RAW wraithstrike is right.
I for one use rules like Wraithstrike does, my players simply adapted to it.
For reach and AoO, I agree with Ciretose.
Page 199 of the core states that unless otherwise noted, combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity.
To me, this is the usual case of a specific rule trumps the general rule.
Combat maneuver rule trumps the general attack of opportunity rule.The dragon in the example would still have had a chance to disarm the fighter. In the worst case, the dragon would have taken a penalty to it's attack roll of the damage the fighter did to it as it reached for him, if the fighter managed to hit.
@ Dire Mongoose. The amount of reach doesn't really matter. I do a bit of medieval sword fighting - including unarmed and dagger work - and on a regular basis, disarm a dagger armed opponent when I am unarmed. I have even disarmed an opponent using a german two-handed longsword.
@ james maissen. I would allow that longspear wielder to make an AoO with a gauntlet or unarmed (which would likely provoke an AoO from the
attacker), but not with the longspear.
I already provided the post that showed someone has to be in threat range from a developer. Now I will ask you the same thing I asked Ciretose. If I can prove my point will it matter to you or will you continue to use Ciretose's interpretation anyway? I can make a thread in the rules section so we can discuss it there to stop cluttering this one up.
|
|
I do think that Citerose approach makes more sense, but RAW wraithstrike is right.
I for one use rules like Wraithstrike does, my players simply adapted to it.
Yes it is off topic, but this has been off topic for awhile and I think this is an interesting and important rule to discuss. If someone wants to move to the rules forum, that is fine.
As to what is or is not RAW, what about the fact that the threatened square AoO applies to all who threaten, while the CMB AoO only applies to the target.
This is largely why I view them separately.
Would the act of trying to disarm provoke an AoO from someone other than the target if you did it in a threatened square? Clearly not, as the rule says only the target gets the AoO.
My read is that it isn't like casting or potions, as it doesn't leave you vulnerable to those around you, only to those you execute a maneuver against. The act of trying to trip/disarm/etc...someone rather than just attacking them leaves you vulnerable to them, and only them.
You can't use it to set a trap, as said above, because only the target gets an AoO on the attacker.
By the other logic, if I was in a sqaure that threatened the dragon when he tried to disarm the fighter, I should get an AoO on the dragon for doing something that provokes, as if the dragon cast a spell or drank a potion.
But I don't, because the AoO for combat manevuers aren't caused by acting in threatened squares, they are caused by the act itself.
I do think that Citerose approach makes more sense, but RAW wraithstrike is right.
I for one use rules like Wraithstrike does, my players simply adapted to it.
Yes it is off topic, but this has been off topic for awhile and I think this is an interesting and important rule to discuss. If someone wants to move to the rules forum, that is fine.
As to what is or is not RAW, what about the fact that the threatened square AoO applies to all who threaten, while the CMB AoO only applies to the target.
This is largely why I view them separately.
Would the act of trying to disarm provoke an AoO from someone other than the target if you did it in a threatened square? Clearly not, as the rule says only the target gets the AoO.
My read is that it isn't like casting or potions, as it doesn't leave you vulnerable to those around you, only to those you execute a maneuver against. The act of trying to trip/disarm/etc...someone rather than just attacking them leaves you vulnerable to them, and only them.
You can't use it to set a trap, as said above, because only the target gets an AoO on the attacker.
By the other logic, if I was in a sqaure that threatened the dragon when he tried to disarm the fighter, I should get an AoO on the dragon for doing something that provokes, as if the dragon cast a spell or drank a potion.
But I don't, because the AoO for combat manevuers aren't caused by acting in threatened squares, they are caused by the act itself.
The thread is CMB's and such.
|
|
I already provided the post that showed someone has to be in threat range from a developer. Now I will ask you the same thing I asked Ciretose. If I can prove my point will it matter to you or will you continue to use Ciretose's interpretation anyway? I can make a thread in the rules section so we can discuss it there to stop cluttering this one up.For reach and AoO, I agree with Ciretose.
Page 199 of the core states that unless otherwise noted, combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity.
To me, this is the usual case of a specific rule trumps the general rule.
Combat maneuver rule trumps the general attack of opportunity rule.The dragon in the example would still have had a chance to disarm the fighter. In the worst case, the dragon would have taken a penalty to it's attack roll of the damage the fighter did to it as it reached for him, if the fighter managed to hit.
@ Dire Mongoose. The amount of reach doesn't really matter. I do a bit of medieval sword fighting - including unarmed and dagger work - and on a regular basis, disarm a dagger armed opponent when I am unarmed. I have even disarmed an opponent using a german two-handed longsword.
@ james maissen. I would allow that longspear wielder to make an AoO with a gauntlet or unarmed (which would likely provoke an AoO from the
attacker), but not with the longspear.
If there was a post with a link to a developer I missed it. Could you please repost it.
What I've read that you posted so far related to moving through threatened sqaures and action that provoke if you are in a threatened square.
My arguement is that a CMs don't provoke in the same way casting a spell or drinking a potion do, as they only provoke from the target as a result of putting yourself in strinking range of the target while in the process of completing the maneuver.
As I said, feel free to make a rules post and I'll follow you there.
Yet, the Wizard has access to Find Traps and Summon Monster and the various other spells that let them deal with traps as easily as a Rogue. Do you really prefer that the Rogue risk their life dealing with a trap than you expend a spell?
If you're going to ask "is it worth risking your life over something?" Then I have to ask, what are you doing in a dungeon to begin with? If you don't feel that risking your life over a trap is worth X amount of gold and experience, then why are you fighting dragons, exploring some deep recess where there can be a cave in, travelling to a different plane where the land itself can burn you to a cinder, going anywhere where rocks can fall...? I mean if you're going to safer card, I gotta wonder if adventuring is the proper career for your character.
Tracy Hickman once said, "Do something barbaric!" to someone playing a barbarian. They described their game session that night as getting much further than they ever had in a single session before and having so much more fun than they ever had before.
"Safer" generally doesn't translate to "more fun." "Taking more risks" and "doing the things we don't get to do in our normal life" generally translates to "more fun." Take a chance! Do something roguish! What have you got to lose? A character? Make a new one after that character lived a full and exciting life of being daring.
|
"Safer" generally doesn't translate to "more fun." "Taking more risks" and "doing the things we don't get to do in our normal life" generally translates to "more fun." Take a chance! Do something roguish! What have you got to lose? A character? Make a new one after that character lived a full and exciting life of being daring.
Amen. My last session, the guy we wanted to kill had gone out the window. I immediately had my elven ranger jump out after him. Sure, I was 5th level, and sure I had picked up fast healing, but it certainly wasn't the safest choice. But it was more exciting and theatric.
What game are you playing CoD?
LoH as a swift action basically means more hit points.
Paladins don't even need Wis.
The notion that smite evil is somehow underpowered is laughable.
What game? 3.5 with splats.
See paladin wisdom, resurrection and similar stuff posted.
Animal companions are still easier to replace than actual PCs.
Read. The. Rules.
If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.