Stuff about the strike back feat
This is attacking a creature that is trying to damage you, or perhaps using an improved version of the CMB, not performing a regular CMB.
See previous statement. Real life has no significance here. This is a fantasy game.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.
While I agree that this is a fantasy game, my real life description was an attempt to explain things in a new fashion and in a way that most could visualize.
I give up lol
I give up lol
Never give up! Never surrender!
|
The only reason the feat Strike Back exists is to allow this.
While I agree with you that the premise is CM+reach=no AoO, this feat has little relevance. It only refers to readying an action to counter-attack. The problem is that an AoO is not a readied action. You do not actively ready an AoO. So this feat has no impact on an AoO as a result of an untrained CM. Although, an argument could occur if (1) you are readied vs. a attack by an ogre, (2) have Strike Back, and (3) he attempts an untrained CM. Both the AoO and the readied attack interrupt the action and occur immediately. So would the feat allow you to gain the benefit on the AoO? I would think not since the AoO is not a readied action which is a requirement of the feat. So you would still loose the AoO as a result of reach, but you would get the counter-attack from the feat. It would need language something to the effect of "until your next turn, you can make counter-attacks vs. any attack made against you, including those out of reach."
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 [b]threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Then why is the word "generaly" used here?
exception, reach weapons. I think we all agree on this one.
exception, CMBs. I think so, so do a few others but some do not.
I give up lol
My wife has said that I can be a little stubborn, every now and then. I have no idea what she means, but she says it in that exact tone that you just used. :)
Tis why I said earlier that it looks like we will have to agree to disagree until an official ruling comes down.
exception, reach weapons. I think we all agree on this one.
Fair enough! After all, if you look no further than the next paragraph...
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller
size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can
make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1
square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures
wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a
typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than
Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
exception, CMBs. I think so, so do a few others but some do not.
Perhaps, but whereas Reach specifically mentions an exception to the threatened square rules, Combat Maneuvers do not.
|
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.
So how does this get around the normal attack rules? There were 3.5 spells and abilities that could grant you attacks outside of your turn, but the targeting rules would still apply.
You still need to be able to make an attack at a creature even when an AOO is provoked.
You are ignoring this.
That's fine as a house rule, and in fact I applaud it as a house rule. I'll even go so far as to say that this should be the rule, but I won't go so far as to say it already is the rule.
You are trying to say that for certain maneuvers merely threatening your own square is sufficient to make an attack against the perpetrator regardless of what square(s) they might actually be in. You then pick and choose on what requirements to make an attack are to be ignored and which are to be followed.
That's all well and good, but it should be stated in the rules. I would love it if Paizo included this in the rules.
They have yet to do so.
Rather than claim it already is there, I would ask that they add it instead.
Making an (unimproved) unarmed attack against an armed opponent for example. Reaching in to grab. Et al. All should form a 3rd kind of AOO provocation which occurs within the square of the target.
I would like it if Paizo would amend the AOO rules to delineate this third kind of AOO, and then specify certain things as provoking this third kind of AOO.
This would make your 'reading' the correct ruling as well as making it clear to everyone.
Since this is motivated by what we want the rules to be, rather than an objective way that it happens to be written, we have to be careful that we are not reading into things and only seeing what we want to see.
-James
At the end of the day, we want the same thing.
So hopefully a Dev will show up and rule it that way ;)
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.
They are different things. They have different paragraphs in the rules.
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.
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
Your specific rule (CM) trumps the rules about Provoking because the CM only provokes from the target of the CM, not from everyone that threatens.
It does not trump the rules about Making an Attack because it doesn't say anything about that.
|
I feel the need to throw the XKCD link in here: ;)
Really, this argument can go on and on and neither will be truly satisfied until a FAQ or errata is in place.
I do like looking at it from the other point of view (at least with reach).
Does something with reach get an AoO against an opponent who performs a CM without the improved feat in the "doughnut hole" (inside of the reach in the 5' range) ?
For example, the fighter with out improved trip, goes to trip an ogre from 5' away (in the "doughnut hole" for the ogre's reach). Does the ogre get a free hit?
|
|
For example, the fighter with out improved trip, goes to trip an ogre from 5' away (in the "doughnut hole" for the ogre's reach). Does the ogre get a free hit?
The ogre threatens at both 5 and 10 feet. You need a different example. :)
So, the fighter without improved trip attempts to trip a medium orc armed with a glaive.
Answer: no, he doesn't threaten, so no AoO.
I'm curious to see Mist and ciretose's reply to this, however.
EDIT: Rectifying my statement. I always mix up natural reach attacks with reach weapon rules..
After playing 3.5 since it came out and dabbling in Pathfinder since its inception I have to say I am torn.
The problem is that it just isn't clear. At some point the combatants of most Combat Manuevers actually have to come into contact. Pathfinder appears to do a poor job of describing what is actually happening. It also appears Pathfinder took out the requirement for grappling to enter the target's square. This brings up more problems.
Examples:
Bull Rush - I imagine a body check. It doesn't say that. I guess it could just be a push. I can't imagine pushing a creature back 5 or 10 feet with just my arms. It would even be dificult to do that to a child. But if I were to put my shoulder into it, that would be different. So the question becomes can you perform a bull rush with reach?
Disarm - I don't see that position of the attacker matters. He can reach or he can't. Armed or unarmed doesn't really matter. There appears to be no reason why the target would get on AoO if they cannot reach the attacker.
Grapple - By the end of the grapple both combatants are within 5'. So at this point one might argue that the target can in fact perform an AoO. Others will say that it is too late. The AoO happens before the attack, so that time has passed. The fact that you do not have to enter the target's square is a major concern. Say the attacker is huge. He reaches out and grapples a human 10' of the front right corner. RAW, he can now move that human to the back left corner. That is 5 diagonal squares or 35'. That appears to be a stretch to me.
Overrun - This is the opposite of disarm. It is clear that the attacker has to move through the target's square. At sometime during the maneuver they are close enough. As you can move during the overrun, say starting 15' away from the target, reach will not matter because the overrun actually takes place when attempting to enter the target's square.
Sunder - This appears to work just like disarm. I see no reason why the target would get on AoO if they cannot reach the attacker.
Trip - The very nature of this maneuver leads me to believe that the target should get an AoO regardless of reach. I imagine a leg or tentacal having to get a firm hold or solid hit. The only way to do this is to move a large, strong portion of the body into place (disregarding special weapons.) But there is nothing in the rules to indicate that is how the trip is made. It could be a quick kick to the side of the targets foot while walking. That requires almost no effort and works wonders.
Feint - It clearly states no AoO.
In all of this there is nothing that is standard. I can see no clear answer that lends itself to EVERY Combat Maneuver. I think I showed reach should allow for a disarm attempt that does not provoke AoO, but also showed that reach has no effect on Overrun. By 'proving' both it is logically impossible to apply a result to all other maneuvers with certainty.
Basically everyone seems to have valid points and until clarified I would suggest playing which way you think is right. I am NOT into the DM has the only say. I feel that the group should vote on it and decide which rules they like the best.
Happy Gaming.
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?
Many time monsters have reason for fluff, the same way AP spellcasters have item creation feats but the feats don't benefit them.
Back to the improved sunder though, there really is no rule that says they can sunder a magical weapon, and the monsters don't have amulets of mighty fist, but that is another debate for another time.
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.
Would you mind explaining this? How does the area that actually covers AoO's apply which is the main topic, but areas that have nothing to do with it don't?
Stuff about the strike back featThis is attacking a creature that is trying to damage you, or perhaps using an improved version of the CMB, not performing a regular CMB.
Where does it say that at? Remember a combat maneuver is an attack. The fact that it may not do hit point damage does not make it any less of an attack.
The only reason the feat Strike Back exists is to allow this.While I agree with you that the premise is CM+reach=no AoO, this feat has little relevance. It only refers to readying an action to counter-attack. The problem is that an AoO is not a readied action. You do not actively ready an AoO. So this feat has no impact on an AoO as a result of an untrained CM. Although, an argument could occur if (1) you are readied vs. a attack by an ogre, (2) have Strike Back, and (3) he attempts an untrained CM. Both the AoO and the readied attack interrupt the action and occur immediately. So would the feat allow you to gain the benefit on the AoO? I would think not since the AoO is not a readied action which is a requirement of the feat. So you would still loose the AoO as a result of reach, but you would get the counter-attack from the feat. It would need language something to the effect of "until your next turn, you can make counter-attacks vs. any attack made against you, including those out of reach."
Either you can attack a monster who is out of reach or you can not. It is that simple. If you can attack then you can then you can ready an action to hit him when he attacks you. If you can not attack a monster outside of your reach then you can't do it on an AoO either. If the intent was to be able to do what Ciretose then the exception to the rule would be something like "unlike most situations when you attempt a combat maneuver untrained the opponent may be able to attack you even when you would normally be outside of its reach"
Ciretose, I can't understand why you're still defending your viewpoint; more than a few posters (for example Grick, Jreyst and Howie) have quoted the relevant parts from the rules and provided pretty good examples of how it works as per RAW.
Ciretose is viewing the rules the way he wants them to be. He has already said he would just houserule it back to his version anyway. While it is frustrating I used to do the same thing some time ago.
But isn't all said for good within
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Emphasis mine.
There are no rules for hitting specific body parts of enemies in PF, only the squares a creature occupies as given by its size (so, 5ft. x 5ft. for medium, 10ft. x 10 ft. for large, ...) are valid for targeting/attacking/dealing damage/performing combat manouvres.
So you as a medium-sized creature only threaten the eight squares adjacent to the square you stand in/on and it's tough noogies for you if you're attacked by a creature with a reach of 10ft. or more.
In one of the examples given above the dragon reaches out with his 10ft. reaching claw, nicks the medium figther's sword and does not suffer consequences from him provoking in theory, because the fighter does not threaten the square the dragon is standing on/in.
*shrug*
But isn't all said for good within
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.Emphasis mine.
There are no rules for hitting specific body parts of enemies in PF, only the squares a creature occupies as given by its size (so, 5ft. x 5ft. for medium, 10ft. x 10 ft. for large, ...) are valid for targeting/attacking/dealing damage/performing combat manouvres.
So you as a medium-sized creature only threaten the eight squares adjacent to the square you stand in/on and it's tough noogies for you if you're attacked by a creature with a reach of 10ft. or more.
In one of the examples given above the dragon reaches out with his 10ft. reaching claw, nicks the medium figther's sword and does not suffer consequences from him provoking in theory, because the fighter does not threaten the square the dragon is standing on/in.
*shrug*
Ciretose thinks the "threaten square" argument carries no weight because CMB checks are an exception to the rule, which is why I brought up the invisible creature, and other examples since they would be allowed by Ciretose's interpretation even though he disagreed and said I was using a red herring, which it was not.
I don't believe any argument or evidence will convince him other than if Jason, Sean, or Stephen comes here and says it.
I don't believe any argument or evidence will convince him other than if Jason, Sean, or Stephen comes here and says it.
He said he will just houserule it back anyway so this is more for other posters really. At least when he post and I counter his post it will give the others something to think about.
I don't believe any argument or evidence will convince him other than if Jason, Sean, or Stephen comes here and says it.He said he will just houserule it back anyway so this is more for other posters really. At least when he post and I counter his post it will give the others something to think about.
It's perfectly reasonable to house-rule it back. I've certainly considered it in my games. It makes more sense that way (but only if you bake Strike Back into the core mechanics rather than a separate feat). Of course, it's a fantasy game - it doesn't have to be possible (fantasy) or realistic (game). But it's nice when the rules make sense...
Not that initiative makes any sense at all.
I don't believe any argument or evidence will convince him other than if Jason, Sean, or Stephen comes here and says it.He said he will just houserule it back anyway so this is more for other posters really. At least when he post and I counter his post it will give the others something to think about.It's perfectly reasonable to house-rule it back. I've certainly considered it in my games. It makes more sense that way (but only if you bake Strike Back into the core mechanics rather than a separate feat). Of course, it's a fantasy game - it doesn't have to be possible (fantasy) or realistic (game). But it's nice when the rules make sense...
Not that initiative makes any sense at all.
I am not against him house ruling it back. I am just clarifying I am done trying to convince him since it wont really matter anyway. However since others have stated that they agree with him maybe I can convince them.
|
I'm inclined to agree with the interpretation of:
(Provoked = Yes) + (Threatened = No) = No AoO.
My own personal rulings would have gone this way anyway, though, as I don't allow attacks against things which do not have HP. Limbs don't have HP in this system (AFAIK), so either you're attacking the creature in general or you're not attacking. It is intended to be an abstraction for exactly this reason.
So to argue that an AoO is possible, one needs to argue that the creature has come within a threatened square, IMO. Doesn't seem to be the case.
Picture this example, though. A wizard picks up a reach weapon (non-proficient - pike or something) and attacks a goblin two squares away with it. AoO?
I'm inclined to agree with the interpretation of:
(Provoked = Yes) + (Threatened = No) = No AoO.
My own personal rulings would have gone this way anyway, though, as I don't allow attacks against things which do not have HP. Limbs don't have HP in this system (AFAIK), so either you're attacking the creature in general or you're not attacking. It is intended to be an abstraction for exactly this reason.
So to argue that an AoO is possible, one needs to argue that the creature has come within a threatened square, IMO. Doesn't seem to be the case.
Picture this example, though. A wizard picks up a reach weapon (non-proficient - pike or something) and attacks a goblin two squares away with it. AoO?
IIRC, using a weapon you are not proficient with does not provoke, but it does give a penalty.
I think a better example would be using an combat maneuver which Ciretose thinks grants an attack against the weapon.
This reminds me of another question that came up earlier though and I would like for Ciretose to answer this.
If a fighter had a reach weapon would he get an AoO against the dragon? The CMB takes place in the fighter's square(my interpretation of disarm), but a reach weapon can only hit something 10 feet away? Does the limb encompass every square from the monster to the fighter or does it only count at the point in space the attack(CMB check) takes place?
|
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?
Well, for the CMD,
10 bab + 8 Str, +2 dex, +10 CMD, +10 locked gauntlet (not two) + 2 from weapon training, which specifically applies to CMD for diarm and sunder attempts. 10+8+2+10+10+2=42Page 151 in the CRB has the locked gauntlet, and notes the +10 bonus vs disarm.
For the dragon, I used the CMB of an adult red dragon from the bestiary.
|
|
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.
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the specific over general rule you say is implied here.
Additionally, still doesn't matter. Provoking just means you go through the same logic chain as any aoo.
Combat maneuvers provoke, certain movements provoke, certain attacks provoke. There are feats, such as improved unarmed strike, improved disarm, which override that function. Still nothing about treating a combat maneuver provoke differently than a regular provoke.
|
|
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.
Paladin, barbarian, fighter, the straight melee classes, all fall within the same range here. And my example proves that they are not left somewhat helpless.
By the examples you give, CMD should provoke from anyone threatening the square it is executed in. It doesn't.
CMD? Your defense score against combat maneuvers? Or did you actually mean combat maneuvers, and not CMD? If you did mean combat maneuvers, I never implied that a combat maneuver should provoke from anyone. In fact, I showed an example of a non-combat maneuver that only provokes from the target.
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.
What reading is that? If you provoke an aoo from starting a bullrush, and die, you don't think you get to finish it, right?
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.
Page 200 talks about grappling a creature that is not next to you. Which means the rules specifically denote that you can grapple at range. Specifics are right here:
"If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails.)"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.
By my reading, the unarmed man will get an aoo against the person without reach closing against him. That's the purpose of reach. And whatever the outcome of that attack is the outcome of that attack. The person closing will either be able to finish closing, or not. And then the other two+ allies will join the combat.
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.
No, I said the penalty is giving up a full-round attack. And if you'll note, that was in regards to the costs for the strike back feat.
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.
Which, from the dragon in question, is +17 to hit, 2d6+10 or +14 2d6+16 with power attack. What happens if the fighter is disarmed? He picks up his sword, provokes, the dragon either tries to disarm him again, with a low chance of success as denoted by my numbers, or just attacks. The fighter moves in and attacks.
Speaking of tiny, by your reading I can combat maneuver any tiny creature without risk.
You need to check your information before you make blank statements like this one. pg 194-195 Creature less than one square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 ft, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. Which means they won't be able to take an aoo unless they share the square with their opponent. Entering an opponent's square also provokes an aoo.
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.
There aren't any mechanical problems with bullrush or grapple. There are conditions where they are less favorable. And, as already explained, combat maneuvers aren't the only thing that only provokes from only the target. Not a valid argument.
My reading corrects for all of these problems, I believe, because it was the intent of the changes written.
Your reading fails to correct for these problems, by invalidating the benefits of reach in a substantial way.
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?
Because, like other feats, the improved series helps in specific circumstances. If you choose to wield a weapon without reach, then creatures with reach are going to have that benefit on you. Asking why reach gives benefits against combat maneuvers is a nonsensical question. The two are not tied together in any intimate way. Reach provides reach. Reach takes some of the power away from certain abilities. That doesn't break those abilities, since they function just fine. Creatures with reach are not the only enemies in the game.
Trying to imply that reach breaks combat maneuvers and thus need to be *fixed* with aoos is similar in logic to claiming that elementals or energy resistance breaks elemental damage on weapons and should be fixed.
The one does not follow the other. If you want a logical argument, please respond to the logical arguments I made. If combat maneuvers are not unique in provoking from a single target, which they are not, then what is your justification for continuing to treat them differently than other attacks of opportunity?
|
|
Let me try one more time, laying everything out to answer all questions on my position in one post and give citations.
One type of action that leads to being vulnerable to an attack of opportunity is caused by lowering your defenses (Drinking a potion, casting a spell, etc…) leaves you vulnerable to anyone in a square threatening you. For these purposes let’s call this a passive provocation of an AoO.
A second type of action that leads to an attack of opportunity is caused by an offensive action that makes you vulnerable to your target, and only your target, due to the nature of the action. This would include fighting unarmed, or some Combat Maneuvers that indicate the action provokes. Let’s call these active provocations.
I believe this was the intent of the rules. Why? For one, let’s type Attack of Opportunity into the bestiary and see what comes up.
On page 47 the cloaker (a large creature) has an ability that reads as follows.
“Engulf (Ex) A cloaker can try to wrap a Medium or smaller creature in its body as a standard action. The cloaker attempts a grapple that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and bites the engulfed victim with a +4 bonus on its attack roll. It can still use its whip-like tail to strike at other targets. Attacks that hit an engulfing cloaker deal half their damage to the monster and half to the trapped victim.”
Now the Cloaker has 10 ft reach, and a medium creature generally would not. So the cloaker should be able to execute this in most cases without concern for AoO since it is out of threat range. Odd they would write it that way if you couldn’t hit a cloaker trying to grapple you normally. Next example.
Pg 58, Balor ability
“Entangle (Ex) If a balor strikes a Medium or smaller foe with its whip, the balor can immediately attempt a grapple check without provoking an attack of opportunity. If the balor wins the check, it draws the foe into an adjacent square. The foe gains the grappled condition, but the balor does not.”
A Balor is a large creature, and a whip is a reach weapon, meaning you will definitely be at distance using it against a medium creature, so how would they get into threat range if that is the intent of the rule.
Next one is Pg 180, small creature so not as relevant. Then page 301, the Grab Special attack,
“Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for
the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.”
So to use this, you are generally larger than the thing you are grabbing (says so in the rule), and so presumably able to be outside of threat range. Yet again, the focus is on negating the AoO, which by the other sides ruling, couldn’t occur in most cases where a larger creature is grappling.
Pg 304 is spell like abilities, not really relevant, Page 305 is Trample, and says it acts like overrun and specifically says it not only provokes but you must move into the square of the target to use it. All seem to agree overrun not only provokes, but puts you in threat range.
Page 305, Trip
Trip (Ex) A creature with the trip special attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if it hits with the specified attack. If the attempt fails, the creature is not tripped in return.
So you can try to trip your opponent without risking being tripped in return. Implying a failed trip isn’t just you falling over, but your target tripping you…interesting since the trip could begin outside of threat range and still end up with the attacker being tripped, or as worded in Core “Knocked Prone”
How do you knock someone prone if you don’t threaten them? Huh.
Page 313 are swarm rules, 315 are quickened spells not provoking.
So we have several examples where it seems clear to me that our reading of the rules was the intent for use of the monsters in the Bestiary.
Very simply, when you attempt a combat maneuver without the improved feat, you put either yourself (if a natural weapon or your arm) or your weapon (in the case of something like the whip above) at risk for an AoO in the course of attempting the maneuver.
Citing 3.5 FAQ material is meaningless since this is the one section Pathfinder completely rewrote. There was no CMB or CMD in 3.5, it was mainly opposed checks which don’t occur anymore due to the new mechanics. It somewhat makes sense to remove the AoO for reach when you are permitted the opposed check. That isn’t the case anymore.
I only keep saying I will defer to a developer because I’m not so arrogant to think I couldn’t be wrong in my reading of the intent. I think it’s odd that others seem to think hubris is a virtue in debate.
I don’t personally think the rule is unclear. I think it is very clear.
This is the wording for the passive provocations that include any mention of who can attack you.
“if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies.”
“Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl.”
“Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.”
As in, in this instance the attack comes from those threatening you. If these were the only people who could ever execute an AoO, they wouldn’t need to say who explicitly.
Now, this is the wording for each of the active provocations.
“Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed.”
“Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver.”
“…attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.”
“…initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.”
Etc…
As to all the “What if” questions, the answer is you would do the same as you would for any attack of opportunity as if the target was adjacent. I would say that you should treat weapons and natural attacks differently, but that is a whole other FAQ.
The rule seems very clear to me. If we disagree, we disagree.
There is still no specific rule stating you get to attack anything out of your reach without the strike back feat. That is what would be needed for your idea to work.
You still did not answer the question in the earlier post about the fighter with the reach weapon.
Here it is again--->If a fighter had a reach weapon would he get an AoO against the dragon? The CMB takes place in the fighter's square(my interpretation of disarm), but a reach weapon can only hit something 10 feet away? Does the limb encompass every square from the monster to the fighter or does it only count at the point in space the attack(CMB check) takes place?
|
|
There is still no specific rule stating you get to attack anything out of your reach without the strike back feat. That is what would be needed for your idea to work.
You still did not answer the question in the earlier post about the fighter with the reach weapon.
Here it is again--->If a fighter had a reach weapon would he get an AoO against the dragon? The CMB takes place in the fighter's square(my interpretation of disarm), but a reach weapon can only hit something 10 feet away? Does the limb encompass every square from the monster to the fighter or does it only count at the point in space the attack(CMB check) takes place?
As to the first part, we aren't going to agree. I read it as "these make you vulnerable from those in threatening squares" and the others as "These make you vulnerable from who you attack" and you read it as something very specific and narrow. As someone else said, I think the specific supersedes the general.
As to the second question, I actually did, but I'll answer again. I don't know. It isn't all that common for to have something outside of the range of your reach weapon but still able to attack you. I would rule you could not, in the same way you can't attack someone next to you with a reach weapon, but that is definately FAQ territory.
But it's not so different from your reading which allows a medium creature to complete a CMB on anyone with a reach weapon without an AoO, so it's a red herring to say it is a "problem" since both readings share the "problem"
In my opinion, not only is my reading correct, it is also is less problematic, both mechanically and logically than the issues raised by your reading of the rule.
That is why I'll keep using it either way. But I feel as confident my reading is "right" as you do. I'm just admitting I am not infallible.
There is still no specific rule stating you get to attack anything out of your reach without the strike back feat. That is what would be needed for your idea to work.
You still did not answer the question in the earlier post about the fighter with the reach weapon.
Here it is again--->If a fighter had a reach weapon would he get an AoO against the dragon? The CMB takes place in the fighter's square(my interpretation of disarm), but a reach weapon can only hit something 10 feet away? Does the limb encompass every square from the monster to the fighter or does it only count at the point in space the attack(CMB check) takes place?
As to the first part, we aren't going to agree. I read it as "these make you vulnerable from those in threatening squares" and the others as "These make you vulnerable from who you attack" and you read it as something very specific and narrow. As someone else said, I think the specific supersedes the general.
As to the second question, I actually did, but I'll answer again. I don't know. It isn't all that common for to have something outside of the range of your reach weapon but still able to attack you. I would rule you could not, in the same way you can't attack someone next to you with a reach weapon, but that is definately FAQ territory.
But it's not so different from your reading which allows a medium creature to complete a CMB on anyone with a reach weapon without an AoO, so it's a red herring to say it is a "problem" since both readings share the "problem"
In my opinion, not only is my reading correct, it is also is less problematic, both mechanically and logically than the issues raised by your reading of the rule.
That is why I'll keep using it either way. But I feel as confident my reading is "right" as you do. I'm just admitting I am not infallible.
I never said I was infallible, but in order specific to over rule for me it has to be exact.
Being able to potentially take an AoO against certain things, and being able to hit something outside your normal reach are two different things.
I do wish a developer would chime in though I don't really even think this one is worth FAQ space.
|
|
I only keep saying I will defer to a developer because I’m not so arrogant to think I couldn’t be wrong in my reading of the intent. I think it’s odd that others seem to think hubris is a virtue in debate.
"In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow..." (citation)
I have flagged this post as personally insulting. It is a continuation the poster's mischaracterization of my position. I previously called out this mischaracterization and responded in:THIS POST
I only keep saying I will defer to a developer because I’m not so arrogant to think I couldn’t be wrong in my reading of the intent. I think it’s odd that others seem to think hubris is a virtue in debate.I have flagged this post as personally insulting.
@Ciretose=That is a pointless statement to make. If the person that made the game says you are wrong then most likely you are wrong. Saying you will only defer to a developer says "if you did not make the game you don't have clue about this particular case", and such cases do exist, but I don't think this is one of them.
Going back to my first sentence, you can say you disagree with the way the developer made the rule, but it is still correct from a rules point of view barring very special circumstances so the statement is still not needed, unless we misunderstood you.
|
|
I only keep saying I will defer to a developer because I’m not so arrogant to think I couldn’t be wrong in my reading of the intent. I think it’s odd that others seem to think hubris is a virtue in debate."In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow..." (citation)
I have flagged this post as personally insulting. It is a continuation the poster's mischaracterization of my position. I previously called out this mischaracterization and responded in:THIS POST
|
|
I only keep saying I will defer to a developer because I’m not so arrogant to think I couldn’t be wrong in my reading of the intent. I think it’s odd that others seem to think hubris is a virtue in debate.I have flagged this post as personally insulting.@Ciretose=That is a pointless statement to make. If the person that made the game says you are wrong then most likely you are wrong. Saying you will only defer to a developer says "if you did not make the game you don't have clue about this particular case", and such cases do exist, but I don't think this is one of them.
Going back to my first sentence, you can say you disagree with the way the developer made the rule, but it is still correct from a rules point of view barring very special circumstances so the statement is still not needed, unless we misunderstood you.
No, I disagree with your reading of the rule. I think I agree with the developer, because I think the developer intended the rule as I read it.
I'll find out if they post on here. If they don't, our games will go on. If they do, our games will go on.
The hubris comment was and is directed toward comments like this, which are very dismissive and arguably condescending. I know you believe you are right, but so do I.
You say "if you did not make the game you don't have clue about this particular case" is the wrong approach, but it is the approach you are taking toward my stance as well.
We have reached an impasse. We both believe we are right, and our reading is the developers intent. Some agree with me, some agree with you.
Thankfully, unlike a theological argument, we may actually get an answer from the makers that will determine who is right and who is wrong as to intent.
Not that it matters, as you can play the game as you like and I will play as I like.
But the dismissive tone isn't helpful.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
With 16 FAQ's(last time I checked) I hope it gets addressed soon. I know the playtest is going on so we may have to wait a while though to get an official answer.
|
|
Really?
The link above is to a youtube video entitled "Offended." I didn't bother to watch it.
No, I'm not offended. That would be a description of my response, and it is inaccurate.
What I said was that it was personally insulting. That is a description of the nature of your action; it is not a description of my response.
************************************
This thread was over a long time ago. Not because of disagreement of opinion about the result, but rather due to lack of a common understanding between all of the participants about how to engage in a reasoned debate.
|
|
Really?The link above is to a youtube video entitled "Offended." I didn't bother to watch it.
No, I'm not offended. That would be a description of my response, and it is inaccurate.
What I said was that it was personally insulting. That is a description of the nature of your action; it is not a description of my response.
************************************
This thread was over a long time ago. Not because of disagreement of opinion about the result, but rather due to lack of a common understanding between all of the participants about how to engage in a reasoned debate.
If it was addressed to you personally, then perhaps it could be personally insulting. I was referring to the comments made about above about me being willing to concede if a developer said I was wrong being used as an argument against my position.
Considering the tone of your comment stating that the participants and reasoned debate, I suppose I should be personally offended.
But since this is the internet, I'll just Post a video of a bunny with a pancake on it's head as it is equally relevant to the topic at hand.
|
|
Considering the tone of your comment stating that the participants and reasoned debate, I suppose I should be personally offended.
Rules discussions are interesting beasts. They tend to start as trying to come to a meeting of the minds. If that fails, lines are drawn up, it becomes an informal debate. The purpose is no longer to convince the other side, but convince the audience. But...they tend to flip back and forth between the two states.
Here's my expectation: If I provide a logical argument, I expect it to be accepted or for it to be demonstrated as to how it fails. That means either pointing out where my statements are false or lack consensus, or how the form of the argument is invalid. My task is to either show how the objection is incorrect, adjust the argument in a way that responds to the objection, or cease using the argument. My expectation is that my partner in the dialogue follows the same rule.
I think my expectation is consistent with many of the others who participated in this dialogue and who shared the position I have on the subject matter.
My experience is that you don't share this expectation, and some others don't as well. In other words, we do not have a common understanding for how to engage in this process. That's not a value statement. It doesn't say you're doing it wrong.
If you find it offensive for me to say that there was not a common understanding about how to discuss this, I can't help that.
Howie stop all that logical talk it burns my mindses
|
|
Considering the tone of your comment stating that the participants and reasoned debate, I suppose I should be personally offended.Rules discussions are interesting beasts. They tend to start as trying to come to a meeting of the minds. If that fails, lines are drawn up, it becomes an informal debate. The purpose is no longer to convince the other side, but convince the audience. But...they tend to flip back and forth between the two states.
Here's my expectation: If I provide a logical argument, I expect it to be accepted or for it to be demonstrated as to how it fails. That means either pointing out where my statements are false or lack consensus, or how the form of the argument is invalid. My task is to either show how the objection is incorrect, adjust the argument in a way that responds to the objection, or cease using the argument. My expectation is that my partner in the dialogue follows the same rule.
I think my expectation is consistent with many of the others who participated in this dialogue and who shared the position I have on the subject matter.
My experience is that you don't share this expectation, and some others don't as well. In other words, we do not have a common understanding for how to engage in this process. That's not a value statement. It doesn't say you're doing it wrong.
If you find it offensive for me to say that there was not a common understanding about how to discuss this, I can't help that.
Really?
Allow me to quote you, and those from your side.
"But, if only a developer saying something will satisfy some folks, so be it. :)" - Howie23
"Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it." - Wraithstrike
"If you can't accept that then fine, wait for someone with a golem next to their name to say the same thing." - jreyst
"Sigh. I'm reminded of that line "some men you just can't reach."" - jreyst
"I am 100% certain of the correctness of my statements. You are not 100% certain of yours, otherwise why would you be here asking?" - jreyst
"You don't have a golem, therefore I'm sure he will claim you have no idea what you are talking about." - jreyst
"Ciretose is viewing the rules the way he wants them to be." - Wraithstrike
"I don't believe any argument or evidence will convince him other than if Jason, Sean, or Stephen comes here and says it." - jreyst
I would describe the above comments as dismissive. I don't feel they meet the criteria you listed.
As to your specific points, your FAQ is from 3.5 for the section of the system that was completely re-written by Paizo. Using it as a reference is like using an old polymorph FAQ. That part of the rules is unquestionably changed dramatically, and so that FAQ no longer reflects the current game. If we were discussing 3.5, you would absolutely be unquestionably right as to the developers intent. But we aren't.
I believe that where it says the target gets an AoO, the target gets an attack because that action puts the attacker at risk from the target by it's nature, but and where it says "...from threatening opponents" means it comes from threatening opponent. I believe "threatening opponents" is the default, and "target" is the specific. So if it doesn't say "from the target" it defaults to threatened square.
I believe it is spelled out under the CM where it applied and under unarmed, by this wording. I believe, and have shown evidence, that this style is the intent of the designers based on the bestiary abilities that effect creatures with reach vs medium or smaller creatures.
All sides have answered questions posed back and forth. And we are at an impasse.
Last I checked, the FAQ was up to 17. Despite both sides believing the rule is clear (and I do believe it is clear based on the evidence I posted just as much as your side believes it is clear based on the evidence you posted) apparently it is not clear.
The only way to get clarity at this point is from developers imput.