|
My position is that I believe I am right, but I will concede if a developer who wrote the rules says that wasn't the intent.
Your position seems to be that you are right, regardless of what anyone says.
That isn't my position, so please don't put words in my mouth.
My position is that the rules can be understood by reading them, understanding the structure of the exception based system (both what it is and what it isn't), and logic. My position is that I can be convinced by someone employing a persuasive speech and the use of evidence and logic. I asked you to find where my facts were false or where my chain of logic was invalid. You did neither. You asked about bullrush and overrun. I answered and you ignored it when I provided answers that are consistent with the rules.
The stated I give weight to the FAQ, which contains considered replies by the developers, a point you acknolwedged and then mischaracterized as saying that I wouldn't listen to what anyone says. I've stated that I don't give weight to the forum postings of developers. The reason, simply is that they are not as considered, are at times inconsistent, subject to reversal, and non-systematic regarding being able to subsequently reference them.
Which position leans more to "entitlement" in your opinion?I don't understand your question.
I don't agree with your reading, and your reading doesn't explain the exceptions given to Combat Maneuvers I outlined that show the mechanism intended is not the same as the one coming from attempting an action in a threatened square.
Someone on your side wrote about "entitlement" inherent in my stance that I'll defer if the developers say otherwise.
I'm simply pointing out that despite the fact this now has 11 people marking it for FAQ the stance taken is the rule is clear.
I personally think the rule is clear. The gaming groups I play with think the rule is clear. We think Pathfinder realized the old system was confusing and counter intuitive and replaced it.
We think this was the biggest change between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
We think the fact that only the target gets the AoO was intentional.
We think the fact that other feats allow you to attack creatures reaching in with natural attacks, even if they don't provoke an AoO, indicates the game world understands arms are part of the body.
We think the fact that Bull Rush and Grapple can put you in threat range as a result of the outcome of the maneuver, and the outcome of the maneuver is dependent on AoO damage (new feature) indicate that you can't adjudicate the outcome until after the AoO is resolved, as if you fail the Bull rush you are certainly in a threatened square, while if you succeed on the grapple you end in a threatened square.
We think this makes sense, and was the rules intent.
But at least I personally don't pretend to know the developers intent, and so I'm willing to say if the person who wrote the rule tells me I misunderstood, I'll go with it being RAW and just keep it as a house rule.
Your side doesn't seem to be willing to say the same, and have said my stance is demonstrative of "entitlement."
And my counter is that the dismissive of your side is quite condescending.
|
|
TTaking it a few steps back to fundamentals, what happens if you allow attacks of opportunity to strike at limbs from creatures with reach. I see no reason why you wouldn't also then be able to strike at reach weapons from players that provoke as well.
Interesting and well reasoned, glad the conversation is coming back to these kind of posts. My thoughts
An attack action does not provoke AoO. But
Do those limbs moving in and out of your square to attack constitute a valid triggering for attacks of opportunity when they move into/out of your square?
No. If it were a tentacle it would actually, indicating after a certain size it becomes valid again. But an attack action never provokes.
Are the creatures with reach still balanced when you consider their weapons as valid targets for attacks of opportunity?
Are they well balanced if they can execute combat maneuvers without penalty. As noted this started from a fighter charging a dragon, who disarmed the fighter prior to the charge attack being completed without provoking any AoO despite not having improved disarm.
The above example is the balance problem, not the other way around. The dragon used an attack of opportunity to disarm an attacker without even needing improved disarm to avoid at attack of opportunity. If the fighter had been given the attack of opportunity, the damage would be added and the attempt would fail.
They also could have tripped him, leaving him prone and vulnerable with no real recourse, despite the dragon taking no feats for the skill.
How is that balanced?
An attack of opportunity is described as a single melee attack.
Melee attacks are described as being able to strike any opponent within 5 feet.
You can't sunder a natural weapon, or disarm it. That leaves a vanilla attack.
According to 182 crb, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
A melee attack is an attack with a melee weapon. Distance is relative to reach and not part of the description.
That is addressing threatened squares, as in if you drink a potion in a square I threatened, I can hit you.
Combat Maneuvers do not provoke in the same way. If someone was next to the dragon in the original example, they don't get an AoO on the dragon while he is disarming as they would if he was casting a spell. Only the target does. My reading of this is because the person executing the maneuver is only exposed to the target, by the nature of the maneuver.
If you try to take someones sword, rather than hit them, they don't need to defend themselves from a damage attack and can therefore simply defend themselves. Same for trip and sunder. I can use my weapon to focus on hitting you, rather than blocking you.
You can't do this unarmed (without training) because you can't block a sword with your hands.
This implies that an opponent must be adjacent to you in order to be within striking distance. Which brings us to the abstraction of space.A medium humanoid takes up a 5ft square, and can attack adjacent foes without leaving his square. In order to attack that adjacent creature, his weapon MUST leave his square and enter the enemies, but in game terms it doesn't affect the movement of the humanoid, the position of the humanoid, or the threat range of the humanoid.
Extrapolate that to larger creatures. It doesn't matter whether a flailing tentacle is in the air because the game determines the creatures position based on its size and location, and not based on how many squares it can reach into.
A creature in square 1A with a 15 foot reach, is still in 1A when it attacks into 1D.
More determinative is the feat Strike Back, which specifically deals with readying an action to make attacks against a reach weapon.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/strike-back-combat---final
It specifically includes limbs, and is not for attacks of opportunities where you are traditionally exposed, but for regular attacks when you are not normally exposed.
I think if anything the existence of this feat helps my case.
All this implies that you cannot take an attack against an object used in a reach attack without a specific feat to do so. Subsequently, it implies that creature area/location determines the area you can threaten, not how far out of that square a particular body part can stretch. Since an attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, having an attack of opportunity trigger does not guarantee that you are in a position to attack, or have a melee weapon to attack with, or any other restriction inherent in making an attack of opportunity.Note that provoking an attack of opportunity does NOT mean you automatically get to make an attack roll. You still have to meet the other requirements, which include a melee weapon, and being close enough to strike your target with that weapon.
And here we disagree. But I appreciate the discussion not being disagreeable and you outlining your position clearly.
Thank you, we'll see how it turns out.
|
|
Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Exactly the problem.
|
Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Not such a big deal considering a creature can take a 5-foot step to close the distance and still full attack. Good use of Step Up will neutralize the "dance" when the enlarged PC keeps stepping away to use "free" imp CM feats.
|
|
Not such a big deal considering a creature can take a 5-foot step to close the distance and still full attack. Good use of Step Up will neutralize the "dance" when the enlarged PC keeps stepping away to use "free" imp CM feats.Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Step up at first level?
And you don't have to step away, you use the improved CM as the AoO for anyone moving in to a threatened square.
A 1st level enlarged wizard can attempt to disarm a charging fighter with no risk of AoO.
Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
With a one round casting time and oh yeah, it does still provoke attacks of opportunity. For some reason, some people are having a hard time getting the difference. Yes, it provokes. No one is saying it doesn't. The sticky bit is that you can't attack something you can't reach. End of story. House-rule it if you want, but you can't according to the rules.
|
With a one round casting time and oh yeah, it does still provoke attacks of opportunity. For some reason, some people are having a hard time getting the difference. Yes, it provokes. No one is saying it doesn't. The sticky bit is that you can't attack something you can't reach. End of story. House-rule it if you want, but you can't according to the rules.Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Not saying that it does not provoke. But, by you, it provokes an Attack of Opportunity that can not be used. Thus does not cause an AoO. Since Enlarge lasts, at first level, 10 rounds (1 minute), you can still get a chance to cast it if you keep your eyes open.
I think that it gives more power than intended to a first level spell.
For some reason people are having a hard time understanding that specific rules over ride general ones.
|
|
With a one round casting time and oh yeah, it does still provoke attacks of opportunity. For some reason, some people are having a hard time getting the difference. Yes, it provokes. No one is saying it doesn't. The sticky bit is that you can't attack something you can't reach. End of story. House-rule it if you want, but you can't according to the rules.Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
If only the target can take the AoO, and the target is out of reach, then there is no AoO.
If only the target can take the AoO, and the target is out of reach, then there is no AoO.
DUDE... it provokes, regardless of whether or not the target can do anything useful with it or not. There IS an AoO, but its useless, don't you get that? Yes, the target gets an AoO. He just can't hit anything with it. He can swing till the cows come home but until something enters his reach, he's out of luck.
|
|
A 1st level enlarged wizard can attempt to disarm a charging fighter with no risk of AoO.Considering that he has to cast a full round spell first, and his CMB is likely to be low in comparison to the fighter's CMD, I'm not too worried
It's a free combat maneuver that can completely disable the fighter at no loss of action or risk for the Wizard.
The wizard can reach in with their bare hands to try to take the fighters weapon with absolutely no risk by your ruling, and they will succeed around between 10% and 25% of the time.
It's a free combat maneuver that can completely disable the fighter at no loss of action or risk for the Wizard.
The wizard can reach in with their bare hands to try to take the fighters weapon with absolutely no risk by your ruling, and they will succeed around between 10% and 25% of the time.
I didn't make up the rules and in any event, I don't see an issue with it regardless.
|
|
If only the target can take the AoO, and the target is out of reach, then there is no AoO.DUDE... it provokes, regardless of whether or not the target can do anything useful with it or not. There IS an AoO, but its useless, don't you get that? Yes, the target gets an AoO. He just can't hit anything with it. He can swing till the cows come home but until something enters his reach, he's out of luck.
And in every other setting, his action would make him vulnerable to anyone in a square threatening him, not just his target.
And if it works as you describe, there is a major mechanical problem with grapple and bull rush, at minimum, and a logic flaw with the rest.
Combat Maneuvers follow different rules than other things that provoke and AoO. It's an exception, perhaps you don't get that?
I am 100% certain of the correctness of my statements. You are not 100% certain of yours, otherwise why would you be here asking? We have given you our reasoning, backed up by evidence. You refuse to accept it. Fine, wait as long as you like until someone with a golem next to their name comes along and rains on your parade.
In any event, I know how the rule works, and since you are not in my campaigns, there is no issue. Good luck.
|
|
I am 100% certain of the correctness of my statements. You are not 100% certain of yours, otherwise why would you be here asking? We have given you our reasoning, backed up by evidence. You refuse to accept it. Fine, wait as long as you like until someone with a golem next to their name comes along and rains on your parade.
In any event, I know how the rule works, and since you are not in my campaigns, there is no issue. Good luck.
I am 100% sure on my reading of the rules.
You believe that you know how the rule works, and, truthfully, as long as your gaming group is happy with it then you are good to go!
I guess I am just curious on how a sanctioned game would handle it.
Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.
|
|
Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.
I'm in no hurry. We've been playing this way since pathfinder came out, and we'll keep playing this way regardless because it makes sense.
And as to your 100% confidence at being right, good for you. I try not to assume I'm always right, since we all know what happens when you assume.
Suit yourself. Just saying, if you'd like to start doing it correctly you might get there faster by posting in the PFS section.
|
|
Since this is a rules question and not specific to PFS, it would just get moved back here anyway...
Being an experienced GM in PFS, I would rule that the reach creature would, by RAW, provoke an AoO from the target of a combat maneuver without the required feat. However, unless the target has a reach weapon, then the AoO is lost since s/he cannot reach the attacker. Sorry, but size has it's privileges.
Since this is a rules question and not specific to PFS, it would just get moved back here anyway...
Being an experienced GM in PFS, I would rule that the reach creature would, by RAW, provoke an AoO from the target of a combat maneuver without the required feat. However, unless the target has a reach weapon, then the AoO is lost since s/he cannot reach the attacker. Sorry, but size has it's privileges.
You don't have a golem, therefore I'm sure he will claim you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
An attack action does not provoke AoO.
Agreed, and not relevant to my comment the way I intended it. If an aoo is provoked, with either a limb or reach weapon within reach, and you can strike at a limb, then you should also be able to strike at the reach weapon. In this situation, the cause of the aoo is ignored to better compare the logic process between the two elements.
No. If it were a tentacle it would actually, indicating after a certain size it becomes valid again. But an attack action never provokes.
In what situation would a tentacle actually provoke? Is this an element of a specific overriding the general? If so, what is the relevance to the general discussion at hand? My default tentacle creature, the Kraken, is Gargantuan and has 8 tentacle attacks, but nothing noting that you can attack the tentacles directly.
Also, if you were to make a melee attack with a fist, without the improved unarmed strike feat, then you would provoke an attack of opportunity. I would suggest that an attack action can be part of an attack that provokes, depending on the weapon. Stating that an attack action does not provoke is no more conclusive than stating that a longsword doesn't provoke. It doesn't, by itself. It's the situational/conditional modifiers that determine whether an aoo is provoked.
Are they well balanced if they can execute combat maneuvers without penalty. As noted this started from a fighter charging a dragon, who disarmed the fighter prior to the charge attack being completed without provoking any AoO despite not having improved disarm.The above example is the balance problem, not the other way around. The dragon used an attack of opportunity to disarm an attacker without even needing improved disarm to avoid at attack of opportunity. If the fighter had been given the attack of opportunity, the damage would be added and the attempt would fail.
They also could have tripped him, leaving him prone and vulnerable with no real recourse, despite the dragon taking no feats for the skill.
How is that balanced?
That is the question. Are they any more, or less balanced with one interpretation over another? Note that the fighter charging the dragon is assumed to be fighting in tandem with at least two other characters. Also, there are equipment and tactical options the fighter can choose to prevent a disarm from working as easily.
By this, I mean there is an easily accessible counter. One form is a locked gauntlet which provides +10 CMD to disarms. Is there a similar easily accessible counter that we could expect the dragon to get to prevent his reach limbs from getting smacked? If not, should there be?If the fighter *did* get an aoo against the dragon, then the dragon is virtually guaranteed to fail in the attempt. As it is, an adult red dragon has a CMB of +29. A 10th lvl fighter has a CMD of 10+10(10 bab)+2(weapon training)+ str mod +dex mod. Let's call str a 26, and dex a 14. Let's give him a locked gauntlet too. That's a 42 CMD vs disarm, before adding in any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, or sacred bonuses to ac. A 10th lvl fighter should have a few more items, then, that boost his CMD a bit more, and possibly feats he might apply to his CMD. Pull 5 more points from those feats and your gear, and the dragon has to roll an 18 to succeed.
Also, the dragon would suffer a penalty to the allies of the fighter if he chose to grapple the fighter. He must be balanced with this in mind, since the average expected party size is 3-4 players.
A melee attack is an attack with a melee weapon. Distance is relative to reach and not part of the description.
That is addressing threatened squares, as in if you drink a potion in a square I threatened, I can hit you.Combat Maneuvers do not provoke in the same way. If someone was next to the dragon in the original example, they don't get an AoO on the dragon while he is disarming as they would if he was casting a spell. Only the target does. My reading of this is because the person executing the maneuver is only exposed to the target, by the nature of the maneuver.
If you try to take someones sword, rather than hit them, they don't need to defend themselves from a damage attack and can therefore simply defend themselves. Same for trip and sunder. I can use my weapon to focus on hitting you, rather than blocking you.
You can't do this unarmed (without training) because you can't block a sword with your hands.
Respectfully, it doesn't matter *how* a combat maneuver provokes. Moving through a threatened square provokes differently than swinging a fist, which provokes differently than a combat maneuver, which provokes differently than casting a spell. All that matters is that an attack has been provoked, and then must follow the standard logic chain in order to execute the attack which includes meeting all the prerequisites in position, weapon availability, freedom to act, ect. in order to successfully hit and deal damage.
It specifically includes limbs, and is not for attacks of opportunities where you are traditionally exposed, but for regular attacks when you are not normally exposed.I think if anything the existence of this feat helps my case.
It specifically includes limbs, and only allows for one attack, requires the feat, and uses the ready action mechanic. What I take from this isn't that you can strike at limbs. What I take from it is that you require a feat to provide an exception to allow you to strike at limbs, which implies that without a specific exception you cannot strike at limbs at all. Which further implies that they are not valid targets for attacks of opportunity because the feat exception does not extend to attacks of opportunity.
Or, in other words, with the feat you have to use a ready action - sacrificing attacks in the previous round, and a feat requiring a high bab, to get a single attack against a creature that attacks you from reach.
Doing the same with an attack of opportunity negates the cost of a feat, a readied action, a potential full round of attacks, and a high bab, which seems counter-intuitive to me.
Hence my final conclusion in the previous post. Thoughts?
|
|
No. If it were a tentacle it would actually, indicating after a certain size it becomes valid again. But an attack action never provokes.In what situation would a tentacle actually provoke? Is this an element of a specific overriding the general? If so, what is the relevance to the general discussion at hand? My default tentacle creature, the Kraken, is Gargantuan and has 8 tentacle attacks, but nothing noting that you can attack the tentacles directly.
Also, if you were to make a melee attack with a fist, without the improved unarmed strike feat, then you would provoke an attack of opportunity. I would suggest that an attack action can be part of an attack that provokes, depending on the weapon. Stating that an attack action does not provoke is no more conclusive than stating that a longsword doesn't provoke. It doesn't, by itself. It's the situational/conditional modifiers that determine whether an aoo is provoked.
In several adventure paths, you fight the tentacle of a much larger beast. In those cases, the tentacle takes up as much space as a medium creature and can be attacked as a result. It even provides rules of combat for dealing with the tentacles, as in at least one adventure the tentacles are the combat, as the "beast" itself is asleep and unaware it's tentacles are attacking on their own.
I made the point with the fist to show the problem. If I grab your sword with my bare hands, but I am a large creature, you can't do anything about it despite both the unarmed attack and the combat maneuver provoking AoO.
Combat Maneuvers specifically do not provoke from anyone but the target of the attack, meaning they are an exception to the general rules in at minimum that aspect. Given the problems with grapple and bullrush I noted above, I don't think this was an accidental exceptional status.
That is the question. Are they any more, or less balanced with one interpretation over another? Note that the fighter charging the dragon is assumed to be fighting in tandem with at least two other characters. Also, there are equipment and tactical options the fighter can choose to prevent a disarm from working as easily.
By this, I mean there is an easily accessible counter. One form is a locked gauntlet which provides +10 CMD to disarms. Is there a similar easily accessible counter that we could expect the dragon to get to prevent his reach limbs from getting smacked? If not, should there be?If the fighter *did* get an aoo against the dragon, then the dragon is virtually guaranteed to fail in the attempt. As it is, an adult red dragon has a CMB of +29. A 10th lvl fighter has a CMD of 10+10(10 bab)+2(weapon training)+ str mod +dex mod. Let's call str a 26, and dex a 14. Let's give him a locked gauntlet too. That's a 42 CMD vs disarm, before adding in any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, or sacred bonuses to ac. A 10th lvl fighter should have a few more items, then, that boost his CMD a bit more, and possibly feats he might apply to his CMD. Pull 5 more points from those feats and your gear, and the dragon has to roll an 18 to succeed.
Also, the dragon would suffer a penalty to the allies of the fighter if he chose to grapple the fighter. He must be balanced with this in mind, since the average expected party size is 3-4 players.
Considering the Dragon lacks the feat to disarm, he should not be surprised to fail at disarming a trained warrior. And given a Dragon's AC, the AoO isn't an automatic hit.
The balance for the dragon would be having to get improved disarm. In fact Dragon's have improved sunder, which would be an option that could be used and not provoke if not for the sunder rules regarding magic weapons.
You have asked the Fighter to acquire multiple feats and items to overcome an untrained maneuver. How is that balanced?
Respectfully, it doesn't matter *how* a combat maneuver provokes. Moving through a threatened square provokes differently than swinging a fist, which provokes differently than a combat maneuver, which provokes differently than casting a spell. All that matters is that an attack has been provoked, and then must follow the standard logic chain in order to execute the attack which includes meeting all the prerequisites in position, weapon availability, freedom to act, ect. in order to make.
Respectfully, there are different kinds of provocation in the rule set.
For example, a potion provokes from everyone who threatens you. So does casting a spell, unless you cast on the defensive. The explained reason is you are distracted by completing this action and unable to defend yourself, and therefore exposed to all threatening you.
Combat Maneuvers only provoke from the target, as an outcome of the actions of that attack. You aren't generally distracted, and therefore you are not vulnerable to anyone who can hit you. Those around you do not get attacks of opportunity, only the target, because by my reading you are putting yourself in a vulnerable position relative to a specific target you are engaging.
Two different things.
As to the last point, the benefit of that feat has nothing to do with Attack of Opportunities, and could not be used to counter an attack of opportunity as it requires a readied action.
So with one feat you can attack someone who is attacking you, even if they are out of your reach...but by your reading of the rule that same person could not take an attack of opportunity from that same creature even if it tried to grab their weapon with their bare hands.
The AoO is the only real penalty of using a combat maneuver untrained. If that penalty is negated, not by a specialized reach weapon, but simply by size, then the Grapple and Bullrush putting you in threat range by nature make no sense, the single target provocation exemption makes no sense, and the ability to use the damage from the AoO to defend against it is severely hampered.
In the dragon example, think of how much the fighter would have to acquire to overcome a non-trained attack from the dragon. Translate that into any large creature, which the fighter would have to go through threatened squares to attack and risk being disarmed.
|
|
I made the point with the fist to show the problem. If I grab your sword with my bare hands, but I am a large creature, you can't do anything about it despite both the unarmed attack and the combat maneuver provoking AoO.Combat Maneuvers specifically do not provoke from anyone but the target of the attack, meaning they are an exception to the general rules in at minimum that aspect. Given the problems with grapple and bullrush I noted above, I don't think this was an accidental exceptional status.
Ahh, then you are effectively referring to individual creatures that an adventure path used in a thematic sense to represent tentacles. I would consider that a specific exception to the rule, and mostly a fluff concept. I don't see the relevance to regular play, or a creature in the bestiary that reproduces that. Honestly though, I didn't look through the bestiary very hard.
As to the large creature, this is true. Large creatures get benefits to help offset their reduced armor class and movement restrictions, one of them being the potential to strike from a distance. If you grab at my sword as a medium creature, I'll take the opportunity to strike your body if I can. If you grab at my sword as a large creature, I'll be unable to strike at you because you're too far away. It's an example of the abstraction of combat that any game requires.
Considering the Dragon lacks the feat to disarm, he should not be surprised to fail at disarming a trained warrior. And given a Dragon's AC, the AoO isn't an automatic hit.
The balance for the dragon would be having to get improved disarm. In fact Dragon's have improved sunder, which would be an option that could be used and not provoke if not for the sunder rules regarding magic weapons.You have asked the Fighter to acquire multiple feats and items to overcome an untrained maneuver. How is that balanced?
I have not required the fighter to do anything he wouldn't already be doing. At 10th level, the fighter should be sporting somewhere around 62000g. I made an estimation of the average bonuses a fighter would have, and incidental bonuses he would get from feats he might be taking anyways. If I were to stat the fighter out specifically against combat maneuvers, it should be very easy to make him immune to disarm on anything but a natural 20.
Given that the Dragon lacks the feat to disarm, it's not a surprise that he should fail. It *is* a surprise that the fighter in the example did fail. The idea of giving the dragon improved disarm implies that he needs to be balanced against giving fighters aoo's against reach attacks. Since the fighter doesn't get aoo's vs reach, the dragon doesn't need to be balanced to that.Short version:
The fighters effective power includes an expected amount of magical items. The dragon won't likely hit the fighter without disarm feats, as it should be. But like anything else, the potential 20 remains.
Respectfully, there are different kinds of provocation in the rule set.
Yes, and each type of provocation initiates the exact same logic chain. If an unarmed human punches a fighter holding a sword without the feat, the fighter *and only the fighter, not the people standing around the fighter* gets an attack of opportunity against him. That attack resolves before the unarmed attack occurs, and if the attacker dies, is an outcome of that attack. The attacker isn't distracted, and thus not vulnerable to anyone who can hit him. Those around him don't get attacks of opportunity, only the target.
This is an example of how combat maneuvers are not unique from provoking from just the target, which means they follow the same attack of opportunity progression as anything else that provokes an attack of opportunity.
The unarmed attack fulfills all the requirements you listed as being different and unique to combat maneuvers.
Let's clarify. Page 180 under provoking an attack of opportunity says:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Combat maneuvers, along with other things, fall within the 'performing certain actions' section. But, again, nothing gives combat maneuvers an exception to the rule.
Large size provides benefits and drawbacks both. Reach is a benefit. Combat maneuvers are situational. They do not apply in every situation. If you're fighting someone with a greater reach than you, then some combat maneuvers WILL be less effective. The purpose of bullrush, for example, is to move an enemy. If you don't have the feat, you provoke an attack. If you're bullrushing a creature your size, you eat an aoo. If you've got reach and are bullrushing a creature without reach, then you get the benefits of reach and don't suffer an aoo.
Similarly, trying to disarm a creature without a weapon is going to be less beneficial. Do you then argue that you should still get some effect? Of course not, it's an obvious trap.
The penalty of using a combat maneuver untrained for a large creature lies in giving up an attack to do so. Instead of disarming the fighter, the dragon in question could have just flown up in the air and breathed fire/spells down on him. Or it could have attacked him. Or it could have flown over him and attacked his friends. Or *maybe* sundered something.
In comparison with the other options the dragon has, a disarm with reach is not unbalanced.
And again, a fighter as he levels will have to deal with tiny hiding creatures and gargantuan creatures with reach. Creatures that attack from underground, and creatures that attack from flight. The APG Fighter variant Crossbow can make combat maneuvers at range. The zen archer from the APG can make aoo's with his bow against anything within range of his unarmed strike.
Being able to make a combat maneuver as a creature with reach is no more powerful than any other creature using their natural features for flight, or to close with an opponent, or to stay out of range of an opponent.
To wrap up this post, and probably my posting until tomorrow, I'm just going to tag this on.
The issue that I am not convinced on, that matters to the main topic of this discussion, is that I have an example that meets the requirements of why you think combat maneuvers are treated differently, and yet is not a combat maneuver.
I think this shows that combat maneuvers are not treated differently for attacks of opportunity. And yes, this invalidates certain maneuvers against foes with reach when you don't have it. However, it opens up other options to use against large creatures. An example would be more creatures being able to aid in a grapple attempt.
Now, whether it's fair that reach makes some combat maneuvers less than useful is not a rules question. Even so, I think it's perfectly appropriate for a large creature to bypass some regular attack maneuvers, and some attacks of opportunity. As far as I can see, that is the whole purpose of reach.
I'm simply pointing out that despite the fact this now has 11 people marking it for FAQ ...
I often click the FAQ, as I did in this case, not because I don't know the answer, but just because I want the wording to be errata'd or because even though I know what RAI is, the RAW is not clear. I never know who I will be gaming with one day, and while I don't mind house rule I do think everyone should know what the original rules intend.
Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Actually you still can't perform the feats unless you have the correct weapon.
..... and they will succeed around between 10% and 25% of the time.A 1st level enlarged wizard can attempt to disarm a charging fighter with no risk of AoO.Considering that he has to cast a full round spell first, and his CMB is likely to be low in comparison to the fighter's CMD, I'm not too worried
Any character betting on these odds is probably going to die. I would rather the wizard try a disarm on me than color spray or sleep.
Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.I'm in no hurry. We've been playing this way since pathfinder came out, and we'll keep playing this way regardless because it makes sense.
And as to your 100% confidence at being right, good for you. I try not to assume I'm always right, since we all know what happens when you assume.
I asked you before I even made this thread would it matter? You said yes. Now I do understand you and your group have the right to change your minds but still... Anyway maybe I can help one of the other guys that agrees with you.
Question: Since your interpretation hinges solely on "unless otherwise stated", what if the attacker is invisible. Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
What if the target is pinned?
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."
|
|
Actually you still can't perform the feats unless you have the correct weapon.Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Yes you can, bare handed.
Because you don't suffer any penalty for unarmed attacks since you are out of AoO range, by your reading.
|
|
Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.I'm in no hurry. We've been playing this way since pathfinder came out, and we'll keep playing this way regardless because it makes sense.
And as to your 100% confidence at being right, good for you. I try not to assume I'm always right, since we all know what happens when you assume.
I asked you before I even made this thread would it matter? You said yes. Now I do understand you and your group have the right to change your minds but still... Anyway maybe I can help one of the other guys that agrees with you.
Question: Since your interpretation hinges solely on "unless otherwise stated", what if the attacker is invisible. Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
What if the target is pinned?
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."
I'm saying the rule is very clear to us. If the developers say the intent of the rule when they changed it to Combat Maneuvers from the old system was to keep the silly rule that you can reach out with your bare hands and take someones sword untrained without provoking if you are a large creature, we will house rule it.
Respectfully, your other examples are kind of silly red herrings.
And you still haven't addressed the Bullrush or grapple issue, or why CM are single target when everything else is multiple target.
Actually you still can't perform the feats unless you have the correct weapon.Wow, if reach and grapple with out Improved grapple does not cause AoO, then enlarge person just became very powerful. 1 spell that gives you at least 4 feats of improved cmd's (grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder), along with bonus damage.
Nice for a first level spell with a duration of 1 min/level.
Yes you can, bare handed.
Because you don't suffer any penalty for unarmed attacks since you are out of AoO range, by your reading.
I was assuming that Happler would understand I meant manufactured weapons without me having to explain it to him.
I was not talking about penalties, by the way. The point was that the feat could not be performed unless the wizard had the correct weapon, and I would assume that the wizard is not silly enough to go into melee against a full BAB opponent bare-handed.
Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.I'm in no hurry. We've been playing this way since pathfinder came out, and we'll keep playing this way regardless because it makes sense.
And as to your 100% confidence at being right, good for you. I try not to assume I'm always right, since we all know what happens when you assume.
I asked you before I even made this thread would it matter? You said yes. Now I do understand you and your group have the right to change your minds but still... Anyway maybe I can help one of the other guys that agrees with you.
Question: Since your interpretation hinges solely on "unless otherwise stated", what if the attacker is invisible. Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
What if the target is pinned?
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."I'm saying the rule is very clear to us. If the developers say the intent of the rule when they changed it to Combat Maneuvers from the old system was to keep the silly rule that you can reach out with your bare hands and take someones sword untrained without provoking if you are a large creature, we will house rule it.
Respectfully, your other examples are kind of silly red herrings.
And you still haven't addressed the Bullrush or grapple issue, or why CM are single target when everything else is multiple target.
I did not read much of the post between yourself and the other posters. I lightly skimmed it. What are you questions on the issue?
|
|
Ahh, then you are effectively referring to individual creatures that an adventure path used in a thematic sense to represent tentacles. I would consider that a specific exception to the rule, and mostly a fluff concept. I don't see the relevance to regular play, or a creature in the bestiary that reproduces that. Honestly though, I didn't look through the bestiary very hard.
As to the large creature, this is true. Large creatures get benefits to help offset their reduced armor class and movement restrictions, one of them being the potential to strike from a distance. If you grab at my sword as a medium creature, I'll take the opportunity to strike your body if I can. If you grab at my sword as a large creature, I'll be unable to strike at you because you're too far away. It's an example of the abstraction of combat that any game requires.
I have not required the fighter to do anything he wouldn't already be doing. At 10th level, the fighter should be sporting...
And the rogue? Any other melee attacker? The fighter was just the example given, which I felt demonstrated that even the highest CMD class is left somewhat helpless by this reading of the rule.
At this point we simply disagree on the reading.
By the examples you give, CMD should provoke from anyone threatening the square it is executed in. It doesn't.
By that reading you get an AoO on a failed bullrush, but not a successful one, but you determine the outcome based in part on damage giving by the AoO.
By that reading you are in threat range if successfully grappled, but can't take an AoO until you are in threat range, but wouldn't be in threat range if not grappled.
By your reading, an unarmed man with an enlarge potion can attempt combat maneuvers without worrying about the normal penalties from either the maneuver or being unarmed.
Saying the penalty is giving up at attack ignores the fact that a combat maneuver is an attack. You give up nothing. A fail is no different than not rolling high enough to beat AC, and a success can remove your opponents effectiveness far more than simple damage.
The only other option the dragon has for an AoO, which is what we are talking about in this instance, is a single Melee attack.
Speaking of tiny, by your reading I can combat maneuver any tiny creature without risk.
If a combat maneuver was the same, it wouldn't only provoke the target of the maneuver and the mechanical problems of Bullrush and Grapple wouldn't exist.
My reading corrects for all of these problems, I believe, because it was the intent of the changes written.
The whole purpose of reach is to be able to attack enemies before they can attack you. You can. If you are trained in a skill, you can even to a combat maneuver without provoking. But to allow it untrained is both mechanically and logically flawed, and I don't read the rules allowing it without any penalty to the attacker. Otherwise what is the point of the improved chain of feats?
The point of the feats was to allow people to be in a threatened area and perform a special action that would otherwise allow for bad things to happen.
I understand why you think pathfinder changed the rules, but my above question still stand. According to your interpretation there is nothing saying my questions are not valid. I would like for the wording to be changed though.
|
|
I did not read much of the post between yourself and the other posters. I lightly skimmed it. What are you questions on the issue?Post in the PFS threads. You might get a faster response than in the general rules advice threads, given that most of the people capable of making such rulings are probably knee-deep in other stuff.I'm in no hurry. We've been playing this way since pathfinder came out, and we'll keep playing this way regardless because it makes sense.
And as to your 100% confidence at being right, good for you. I try not to assume I'm always right, since we all know what happens when you assume.
I asked you before I even made this thread would it matter? You said yes. Now I do understand you and your group have the right to change your minds but still... Anyway maybe I can help one of the other guys that agrees with you.
Question: Since your interpretation hinges solely on "unless otherwise stated", what if the attacker is invisible. Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
What if the target is pinned?
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."I'm saying the rule is very clear to us. If the developers say the intent of the rule when they changed it to Combat Maneuvers from the old system was to keep the silly rule that you can reach out with your bare hands and take someones sword untrained without provoking if you are a large creature, we will house rule it.
Respectfully, your other examples are kind of silly red herrings.
And you still haven't addressed the Bullrush or grapple issue, or why CM are single target when everything else is multiple target.
A failed bullrush leaves the attacker next to the targer. You can initiate the bullrush from reach (outside the threatened area) but if you fail you are within the threatened area. Is there an AoO when you fail, and considering the damage from AoO would be used to determine success or failer, how does that work.
A successful grapple brings the target next to the attacker. So on a failed grapple you would not be in an area that threatens, but on a successfully one you would me, so when does the AoO occur, as during the course of the action, if successful, you are moved in a square that threatens, but the outcome of the AoO determines success or failure. So you can only use the AoO if the grapple succeeds, which is determined in part by damage from the AoO?
Normal things that provoke AoO provoke from anyone who is threatening. In the Dragon example, under a normal AoO event, when the dragon attempted the disarm, anyone next to the dragon would get an AoO. If the dragon tried to cast for example, or drink a potion, anyone nearby gets an AoO. The logic written being that he is distracted by the action and unable to defend himself.
For Combat Maneuvers, only the target may attack. My interpretation being because the act only makes him vulnerable to the target, not distracted. When you consider the nature of the maneuvers, this makes complete sense. You are performing an attack actions (which does not provoke) on something other than a physically vulnerable part of the target. Normally the target would be using their weapon defensively against an incoming attack, but since you aren't trying to "hurt" them they aren't defending themselves.
Similarly unarmed attacks only provoke from the person you are attacking, as you are exposing your unprotected, untrained hands to swords. Which is why it also only provokes from the target.
There are two separate types of actions, ones that provoke due to distractions and ones that provoke due to exposing the attacker to vulnerability.
A failed bullrush leaves the attacker next to the targer. You can initiate the bullrush from reach (outside the threatened area) but if you fail you are within the threatened area. Is there an AoO when you fail, and considering the damage from AoO would be used to determine success or failer, how does that work.
A successful grapple brings the target next to the attacker. So on a failed grapple you would not be in an area that threatens, but on a successfully one you would me, so when does the AoO occur, as during the course of the action, if successful, you are moved in a square that threatens, but the outcome of the AoO determines success or failure. So you can only use the AoO if the grapple succeeds, which is determined in part by damage from the AoO?
Normal things that provoke AoO provoke from anyone who is threatening. In the Dragon example, under a normal AoO event, when the dragon attempted the disarm, anyone next to the dragon would get an AoO. If the dragon tried to cast for example, or drink a potion, anyone nearby gets an AoO. The logic written being that he is distracted by the action and unable to defend himself.
For Combat Maneuvers, only the target may attack. My interpretation being because the act only makes him vulnerable to the target, not distracted. When you consider the nature of the maneuvers, this makes complete sense. You are performing an attack actions (which does not provoke) on something other than a physically vulnerable part of the target. Normally the target would be using their weapon defensively against an incoming attack, but since you aren't trying to "hurt" them they aren't defending themselves.
Similarly unarmed attacks only provoke from the person you are attacking, as you are exposing your unprotected, untrained hands to swords. Which is why it also only provokes from the target.
There are two separate types of actions, ones that provoke due to distractions and ones that provoke due to exposing the attacker to vulnerability.
I always visualized a bull rush as a sort of shoulder tackle meaning it would provoke, but if it can be done with reach(by stretching your arms out) then it should not provoke if your reach is greater than the opponents.
I really have never used bull rush.
The AoO take place before the action that allows it to happen so with a grapple you get the attack roll before I made my grapple check or not at all. The FAQ on trying to trip someone in the act of standing up gives a good example on this. If you got the attack after the grapple was completed it would not do any good since the damage can give a penalty to the CMB causing it to not take place, but it can not make the enemy release you.
The only reason everyone does not get an attack of opportunity instead of just the intended victim is because the rules say so. I don't really like that rule, but that is the rule. Unarmed strikes are in the same boat. The only reason I can think of is for balance.
Larger monsters have always had advantages over smaller creatures in the game. I agree with your logic from a real life point of view, but not from a gamist point of view.
It is just like the rule that says paralyzed creatures get reflex saves. It is not completely logical from a real world point of view, but it is a game rule.
|
|
The only reason everyone does not get an attack of opportunity instead of just the intended victim is because the rules say so. I don't really like that rule, but that is the rule. Unarmed strikes are in the same boat. The only reason I can think of is for balance.
This is the divide I think. It makes perfect sense to me if you follow the logic that these things put you at risk from the target by their nature, while the others only distract you and leave you open to attack.
My feeling is your way is unbalanced, as it means your Dragon can do something it wasn't trained to do without any penalty. If that was they case, why bother giving them improved sunder since they will pretty much always be out of threat range against a party of medium sized adventurer?
|
|
Question: Since your interpretation hinges solely on "unless otherwise stated", what if the attacker is invisible. Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
What if the target is pinned?
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."I'm saying the rule is very clear to us. If the developers say the intent of the rule when they changed it to Combat Maneuvers from the old system was to keep the silly rule that you can reach out with your bare hands and take someones sword untrained without provoking if you are a large creature, we will house rule it.
Respectfully, your other examples are kind of silly red herrings.
Actually they seem to me (and evidently to wraithstrike) as natural consequences of your stance. This is why I've been asking about reach weapons and the like.
You're saying that a creature can attack a limb when granted an AOO, but otherwise cannot normally do so.
Why?
Yes they are granted the AOO, but they still have to be able to make the attack. So either the limb is a valid target or it is not.
This is why I asked why can't a fighter simply ready to attack a limb.. because if they are valid targets then he can do so just as much as he can ready to attack an incorporeal.
How is 'provoking an attack of opportunity' different from a readied attack? They are different, but I don't see how any of their differences matter for this issue.
-James
I am not saying you can attack attack a limb when granted an AoO, I am saying combat maneuvers require more interaction/exposure than a normal attack and therefore expose you to your target.
A readied attack is you standing and waiting for them to swing, sacrificing your other attacks/movement/initiative. With a feat, can do this against someone with reach. The idea of a readied action counter attack is you are waiting for them to move in to attack, but still defending yourself from the attack. With a Combat maneuver, the attack is doing no damage so you don't need defend against the damage, hence getting the AoO.
With a combat maneuver, you are exposing yourself without doing a damage dealing attack.
When you visualize what the attacks are, it makes perfect sense. If I try to grab your sword with my bare hands, or try to drive you back into a wall, etc...of course I'm putting myself or my weapon at risk.
There are two different things at play. AoO due to you being distracted while in a threatened square and not defending yourself (passive) and and AoO due to you making yourself vulnerable to a target in exchange for attempting a special attack (active)
One allows everyone to participate, one is just between you and the target.
If a target is pinned, immobile, etc...it says under Combat Maneuvers assume you rolled a 20 as they are unable to resist.
"If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it."
Invisibility does not specifically say no CMB maneuvers?
CMB does not specifically address invisibility, but invisibility already has exception rules, and they would apply.
What about ranged weapons, can they do make AoO's now against CMB checks?
Unless you were using the improvised weapon rule, likely not. However, an archer could use one hand to respond to the CMB. Or if the ranged weapon is a dagger, then yes, they could.
What if the target is pinned?
CMB does not specifically address pinning, but pinned already has exception rules, and they would apply.
I think you get the picture. In none of these circumstances and I am sure other posters can think of more is there an "otherwise stated clause."
To me, a good part of the reason why I believe that CMBs provoke AoO is the specific rule trumping the general rule.
If the fighter *did* get an aoo against the dragon, then the dragon is virtually guaranteed to fail in the attempt. As it is, an adult red dragon has a CMB of +29. A 10th lvl fighter has a CMD of 10+10(10 bab)+2(weapon training)+ str mod +dex mod. Let's call str a 26, and dex a 14. Let's give him a locked gauntlet too. That's a 42 CMD vs disarm, before adding in any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, or sacred bonuses to ac. A 10th lvl fighter should have a few more items, then, that boost his CMD a bit more, and possibly feats he might apply to his CMD. Pull 5 more points from those feats and your gear, and the dragon has to roll an 18 to succeed.
I am having a bit of a problem with your numbers Magicdealer
a 10th level fighter with strength of 26 (magic items included) would have a CMB of 18 (10 BAB + 8 Str).
That same fighter with a locked gauntlet and a dex of 14, would have a CMD of 32 (10 BAB + 8 STR + 10 CMD + 2 Dex + 2 locked gauntlet).
So, your dragon would only need to roll a 3, or if your +5 various modifyers are added, an 8.
Am I missing something or gotten something wrong there?
Let's clarify. Page 180 under provoking an attack of opportunity says:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Combat maneuvers, along with other things, fall within the 'performing certain actions' section. But, again, nothing gives combat maneuvers an exception to the rule.
Page 199 of the core states that unless otherwise noted, combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Later in the CMB section it states in all the descriptions of CMBs that if you do not have improved xxx, you provoke an attack of opportunity. This is also noted in the feat section, in all of the improved CMB feats in the "normal" paragraph.
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.
WHO said it doesn't provoke??? IT DOES! But just because it provokes an AoO the fighter doesn't all of a sudden get reach.
If you can't reach the space an opponent occupies you can not attack it.
It's really as simple as that.
This is why I've been asking about reach weapons and the like.
You're saying that a creature can attack a limb when granted an AOO, but otherwise cannot normally do so.
Why?
Hit Points are a vary vague concept, meant to speed play and make the game more enjoyable for everyone. You don't have to hit the torso to damage a creature, you just have to hit it.
Someone trying to punch you will have their fist moving much faster than if they are trying to take a cell phone out of your pocket, to put into today's terms.
You don't have much of a chance of blocking that punch, but you do have a chance to grab the hand pulling the cell phone out of your pocket.
To me, this demonstrates how the AoO in response to CMBs is different from regular attacks.
How is 'provoking an attack of opportunity' different from a readied attack? They are different, but I don't see how any of their differences matter for this issue.
It is much easier to hit someone when are waiting for them to do something specific, you are primed for it. Hence, according to the rules, you can attack at the precise moment when that action occurs, but don't do anything if they don't do the action
ex: readied an attack to hit the caster once they start to cast a spell (likely so that not only do they take damage, but lose the spell too). But if they use a wand, you can't attack them when they brandy the wand about.
An AoO is pretty much a reflexive action. You don't think about it, your body responds. The game allows players to control the reflexes of their characters -again, to make the game more enjoyable for the players.
WHO said it doesn't provoke??? IT DOES! But just because it provokes an AoO the fighter doesn't all of a sudden get reach.
If you can't reach the space an opponent occupies you can not attack it.
It's really as simple as that.
This is where I am saying that the specific rule trumps the generic rule.
Threatened areas for AoOs is the general rule. CMBs are the specific rule.
It could be that this is the balance point between your interpretation and mine.
I don't have to reach the opponent to hit them, if they are bringing themselves to me, even if only with a limb or their head.
For an example that most can hopefully relate to, take a cat. A human has a huge reach advantage towards a cat. If you punch that cat while it has a ball of yarn between it's paws, you are likely to hit it (no AoO, direct damaging attack), but if you try to take that ball of yarn, you will likely have claw marks on your hand, and quite possibly, not end up with the yarn in your hand (disarming CMB).
Edit: If the cat is waiting for you to hit it (or try and take the ball of yarn,) with a raised paw -it has readies an action.
As to the argument of reach weapon vs natural attack.
If it is a natural weapon, then your response to the CMB provoked AoO damages the opponent, adding a modifier to it's CMB.
If it is a reach weapon, then you have the choice of trying to sunder it (causing an AoO against you) or simply trying to bat it aside -which will add the "damage" as a modifier to the CMB attempt.
Batting aside a weapon is a common practice when using medieval weapons. It's something that I train on every week when I do sword training.
I don't have to reach the opponent to hit them, if they are bringing themselves to me, even if only with a limb or their head.
The only reason the feat Strike Back exists is to allow this.
Strike Back (Combat)
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
In case people don't already know, generally the sentence after the name of something, and outside of the "Benefit" line is FLAVOR text. Meaning, it has no mechanical significance. It could say "You can spit on someone so hard it makes their arms fly off" and wouldn't matter. All that matters is what's in the Benefit section, which says,
"You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach"
Breaking that down you see that
- You have to have a BAB of +11 or more to use it
- You have to use the Ready action
- You can only use this WHEN it attacks you
So, you have to have BAB +11, spend a FEAT, AND you have to use the READY action.
THIS is the exception to the general rule of not being able to attack things you can't reach BECAUSE it explicitly says so.
Because you think it should be a certain way is NOT an explicitly stated exception.
People are imagining things in the mechanics that aren't there because it seems to / seems not to make sense "in real life." Real life has no bearing on this. Examples of cats and how well you fight with swords has nothing to do with this. The exception to being able to attack something you can't normally reach is via the feat Strike Back, BECAUSE IT SAYS SO.
For an example that most can hopefully relate to, take a cat. A human has a huge reach advantage towards a cat. If you punch that cat while it has a ball of yarn between it's paws, you are likely to hit it (no AoO, direct damaging attack), but if you try to take that ball of yarn, you will likely have claw marks on your hand, and quite possibly, not end up with the yarn in your hand (disarming CMB).
Edit: If the cat is waiting for you to hit it (or try and take the ball of yarn,) with a raised paw -it has readies an action.
See previous statement. Real life has no significance here. This is a fantasy game.
Regardless of specification, "threatened squares" and "attack of opportunity" are not mutually exclusive - in fact, they cannot exist without one another.
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.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of
actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out
of a threatened square and performing certain actions
within a threatened square.
The two rules directly link the two together (emphasized in bold and italics), and already takes special actions that provoke attacks into consideration.
That "certain action" in this case is the Combat Maneuver. Using your example, you must go through a series of steps when determining if an attack of opportunity can be made:
1) Does the action provoke? -Yes, by definition, all CMB's provoke AoO's if they are not Improved.
2) Is the provoker in a threatened square? -No, the creature has reach, and is therefore not adjacent to you. Unless you have a reach weapon yourself, you are not threatening the provoker.
3) Do the CMB rules make an exception to this rule? -No; while it is stated that a CMB provokes an attack of opportunity, no exceptions are made to 2), so you must automatically assume that the threatened square rules are in effect - "unless otherwise stated," but it isn't.
TL;DR - RAW, CMBs provoke AoO's, but unless the provoker is within a square that the target threatens, the target cannot make an AoO.