Good thing this discussion was had here and not back in the other board then!
Honestly, the only point of posting here now is to bump the thread. Both sides have presented their evidence and their interpretations of that evidence. This is just a case where the line between RAW and RAI is skewed - all we can do now is wait for a developer to comment.
|
snip quotes
I would describe the above comments as dismissive. I don't feel they meet the criteria you listed.
I agree that they are not part of what I've described as the framework for my expectation of how reasoned dialogue takes place. But, it takes away nothing from that framework. Within this thread are elements that are part of the framework, commentary by participants an onlookers, as well as this portion, which is basically a conversation about the conversation. :)
What you are providing as evidence of folks not being confined to the framework are statements that, repeatedly, are the objections from people that you have left that very framework; they are commentary about the status of the conversation. There is nothing in what I've described that says it is all inclusive and that other means of communication cannot be employed. I provided an apology for the single quote you provided of mine back on post #32.
You have reengaged the conversation itself. But, you've never indicated that you share the expectations of the framework. If you want to buy into that, so that we have a common understanding about how to proceed, then I'll continue. If you want to provide your version of what that common ground should be, and if we can agree that we can define a common understanding, then I'll continue. Until then, my opinion stands that there is insufficient common ground to expect any progress.
edit: minor corrections
|
|
snip quotes
I would describe the above comments as dismissive. I don't feel they meet the criteria you listed.I agree that they are not part of what I've described as the framework for my expectation of how reasoned dialogue takes place. But, it takes away nothing from that framework. Within this thread are elements that are part of the framework, commentary by participants an onlookers, as well as this portion, which is basically a conversation about the conversation. :)
What you are providing as evidence of folks not being confined to the framework are statements that, repeatedly, are the objections from people that you have left that very framework; they are commentary about the status of the conversation. There is nothing in what I've described that says it is all inclusive and that other means of communication can be employed. I provided an apology for the single quote you provided of mine back on post #32.
You have reengaged the conversation itself. But, you've never indicated that you share the expectations of the framework. If you want to buy into that, so that we have a common understanding about how to proceed, then I'll continue. If you want to provide your version of what that common ground should be, and if we can agree that we can define a common understanding, then I'll continue. Until then, my opinion stands that there is insufficient common ground expect any progress.
The fact is both sides believe they are right, and have presented evidence they believe show they are right. And the two positions (or three if you count people who think the rule is as you see it but should be as I see it) are in conflict with each other.
And since I think both sides contain intelligent and reasonable people, that means the rules are not clear. Hence the thread and the FAQ posts.
Which means the only way we are going to get an "answer" as to the intent is from a developer who wrote the current rules.
There are a few possible outcomes as I see it. Your side is right, My side is right, the rule is unclear and gets clarified one way or the other by a developer.
It will all work out.
Secondly, seeing as this rules set does not exist in a vacuum but rather is something built on top of another, which set of developers do you need to talk to in order to discuss intent and what is actually written there?
I think that the only set of developers that need to be consulted are the ones at Paizo. Regardless of who wrote the original rules, Paizo has made changes in all areas of the rules. How those changes affect the old rules need to be addressed by them, and not those that wrote the original rules.
1. Moving (unchanged)
2. Performing a distracting act (within your own square) (unchanged)
3. Performing a dangerous act in someone else's square. Some actions require you to act in an enemy's square while remaining within your own. This leaves you vulnerable to them specifically if they threaten either their own square or your square. The attack of opportunity can be considered to take place in either square in such an instance. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. See the individual listings for the requirements.
I think that this is a little more complicate (and a bit confusing, at least to me).
Perhaps : Performing a distracting act (this include CMBs with reach)... would be a bit clearer and less confusing.
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.
My read is that the CMB provokes an AoO, even if you do not threaten the square where the creature making the attack is located.
I understand where your argument is coming from and I can see it, but I do not agree with it. Common sense, my interpretation of RAI and RAW, sword fighting experience (I know, I know, don't bring real life stuff into a fantasy setting - but it was the fantasy game that got me into swordfighting - to me, they are linked :))
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.
I would not allow a reach weapon to be used for an AoO to an attack that was within 5'. I would allow the orc to do attempt an unarmed attack as an AoO, or a spiked gauntlet response to the AoO.
|
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.
My read is that the CMB provokes an AoO, even if you do not threaten the square where the creature making the attack is located.
I understand where your argument is coming from and I can see it, but I do not agree with it. Common sense, my interpretation of RAI and RAW, sword fighting experience (I know, I know, don't bring real life stuff into a fantasy setting - but it was the fantasy game that got me into swordfighting - to me, they are linked :))
Would you concede that your interpretation is in the minority? I've never seen or even heard of anyone ruling that a CMB provoked AoO takes place when you don't threaten the actual attacker.
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.
Ah, my bad. I had assumed that the +2 in your example was the gauntlet.
I have seen too many situations where a locked gauntlet caused a fair bit of trouble to the PC using it.
Assuming either a shield and gauntlet or two gauntlets, they can't drink potions by themselves; can't pick anything up; can't grab someone who is falling; can't grab for a ledge if they start to fall; etc..
Except for formal duels, neither myself or my players have really used them.
Would you concede that your interpretation is in the minority? I've never seen or even heard of anyone ruling that a CMB provoked AoO takes place when you don't threaten the actual attacker.
I am quite willing to concede that it is the minority interpretation of those actively posting in this thread. :)
ciretose, I know you don't think the 3.5 ruling should stand because this is a different game. However, have you taken into account that the only thing that changed with the combat maneuvers is the mechanic on how to execute the maneuver, not whether the maneuver provokes an attack? If you go back and look at the SRD (or your PHB) and compare each with the PFRD (or Core Rulebook), you will see that there is little difference between them. This is a case where you can use the old 3.5 ruling and it should be fine.
Some things don't work logically in the rules because then it brings up weird things. You are essentially getting called shots with your ruling and that can open up another can of worms that your group may not want to go into. If you can attack a limb that is reaching for you, why not attack the limb preemptively?
Ciretose and Mist, do you recognize the difference between Provoking an AoO, and Making an AoO? This might be the basis of your confusion.
As for the wall of monster rules, I don't see them supporting your argument.
Engulf (Ex)
Entangle (Ex)
Grab (Ex)
Trip (Ex)
None of these extraordinary abilities provoke. If the rules did not specify this, then they would provoke. Yes, some of those creatures have reach, but they could still use these abilities while in a threatened square. So in order for them to never provoke, the rules have to specifically say that they never provoke. And they do.
How do you knock someone prone if you don’t threaten them? Huh.
"If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead." This is not an action taken by the defender, it's what happens when you fail. This is the specific rule calling out what happens when you fail your check. If you trip (CM) someone from outside their threat range, they cannot make the attack of opportunity against you. You still get knocked prone if you fail.
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.
You have several extraordinary abilities that do not provoke. They can all be made while in a threatened square, so they -must- be called out as not provoking, or else they would provoke like normal. Those rules do not in any way support your argument.
(From a later post:)
I believe that where it says the target gets an AoO, the target gets an attack (...)
The rules do not say this. The CM rules never say the target gets to make an attack. It says the CM provokes.
I believe it is spelled out under the CM where it applied and under unarmed, by this wording.
But your wording is not in the rules. The rules say the CM provokes, your wording says the target makes an attack. They are not the same thing.
|
|
ciretose, I know you don't think the 3.5 ruling should stand because this is a different game. However, have you taken into account that the only thing that changed with the combat maneuvers is the mechanic on how to execute the maneuver, not whether the maneuver provokes an attack? If you go back and look at the SRD (or your PHB) and compare each with the PFRD (or Core Rulebook), you will see that there is little difference between them. This is a case where you can use the old 3.5 ruling and it should be fine.
Some things don't work logically in the rules because then it brings up weird things. You are essentially getting called shots with your ruling and that can open up another can of worms that your group may not want to go into. If you can attack a limb that is reaching for you, why not attack the limb preemptively?
It isn't the only thing that changed.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/specialAttacks.html
For example, the old disarm
"Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square.
If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him."
So basically, it was able to counter your disarm in the past if you failed your disarm. How could they do this, considering you were not in a threatened square you ask? Because the act moved them into risk.
Now these old rules were a pain, so they changed them completely in pathfinder.
It isn't a called shot at all. The only time this comes into play is if a creature with reach attempts a combat maneuver untrained, which shouldn't happen very often UNLESS you are playing by the other rules where there is no consequence for untrained combat maneuvers.
What won't work logically by my reading that will by yours?
It isn't the only thing that changed.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/specialAttacks.html
For example, the old disarm
"Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square.
If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him."
So basically, it was able to counter your disarm in the past if you failed your disarm. How could they do this, considering you were not in a threatened square you ask? Because the act moved them into risk.
Now these old rules were a pain, so they changed them completely in pathfinder.
They changed how the mechanic was resolved but not whether the maneuvers provoked attacks of opportunity. That is what is in question. Not the mechanics but the provocation.
It isn't a called shot at all. The only time this comes into play is if a creature with reach attempts a combat maneuver untrained, which shouldn't happen very often UNLESS you are playing by the other rules where there is no consequence for untrained combat maneuvers.
It is definitely a called shot. You are attacking a specific body part. It may be a tentacle for an otyugh, a bite for a dragon, or the claws for a vrock but you are still attacking a specific body part. The hydra has rules for attacking specific body parts. I can't think of any other creature that has such a rule.
What won't work logically by my reading that will by yours?
I never said that my understanding was any more logical than yours. I can see where you are coming from and think it would make for a great maneuver. Maybe you could take that attack of opportunity if you make an attack with your CMB against their CMD. I don't know if this method would be viable or not. I'm just throwing it out there. I do know that with most players, the moment you let them do one thing (attack a limb coming at them) they will want to continue the line of reasoning (I can can already attack limbs if they are attacking me, why can't I be proactive?)
Being larger than your opponent has huge advantages. This is one of them as far as I would be concerned as GM. Note that you would be able to use your attack of opportunity if you also had a reach weapon. That is the advantage of using reach weapons. So if you had a halberd and an ogre tried to grapple you, you could attack back. This is a great use for the quick draw feat.
|
|
It isn't a called shot at all. The only time this comes into play is if a creature with reach attempts a combat maneuver untrained, which shouldn't happen very often UNLESS you are playing by the other rules where there is no consequence for untrained combat maneuvers.It is definitely a called shot. You are attacking a specific body part. It may be a tentacle for an otyugh, a bite for a dragon, or the claws for a vrock but you are still attacking a specific body part. The hydra has rules for attacking specific body parts. I can't think of any other creature that has such a rule.
A called shot is picking an area during an attack.
We all agree you expose yourself to the target during the course of the maneuver, that isn't a point of disagreement.
But unlike other maneuvers, in a CMB it isn't distraction that does it, otherwise everyone would be able to take an AoO. It is something in the nature of what you are doing that exposes you (or your weapon) to your target.
The wording in the examples for trip don't say you "lose your balance" they say you are "knocked prone". Who knocked you prone? Why the person you had the failed attempt against. How? Because you made yourself vulnerable to them in the course of the maneuver by executing it untrained.
If you grab a sword barehanded, or try to trip someone, or run them over, or push them somewhere, you bring yourself into direct (or with a weapon indirect) contact with them. By old rules you could take that weapon from them, was that a "called shot"?
Now within the game with a feat you can attack a limb coming in as an attack action that wouldn't provoke an Attack of Opportunity, or in other words you can attack something that isn't making itself vulnerable, and is not in a threatened square.
Our position is that the action puts them at risk from the target, and only from the target, because they commit an act that makes them vulnerable to the target specifically.
But we can disagree on the reading and agree it should be the rule regardless if you like. If a Dev comes in here and says my reading is wrong but the rule should be that, then you and James can have the best of both worlds :)
Our position is that the action puts them at risk from the target, and only from the target, because they commit an act that makes them vulnerable to the target specifically.
But we can disagree on the reading and agree it should be the rule regardless if you like. If a Dev comes in here and says my reading is wrong but the rule should be that, then you and James can have the best of both worlds :)
I think we all agree that it does put the one taking the action at risk. Where we differ is how the risk is mitigated. If someone uses a halberd to trip someone, he is at risk for an attack of opportunity, it's just that the victim is not in a position to make that attack. Just like if someone used a flail to trip against someone with a crossbow, the crossbow wielder is not in a position to take advantage.
I'm not trying to have the best of any worlds. Besides, in the end the only thing that would matter if a developer came in here would be to tell us who is going to be house ruling. I don't think it's going to change how we run our games overall.
My read is that the CMB provokes an AoO, even if you do not threaten the square where the creature making the attack is located.
I would not allow a reach weapon to be used for an AoO to an attack that was within 5'. I would allow the orc to do attempt an unarmed attack as an AoO, or a spiked gauntlet response to the AoO.Two things here:
First you are contradicting yourself. The CMB provokes an AOO even if you do not threaten the square... that is the case for your later response in which you say no...
Pick one.
I don't think I have contradicted myself. I may not have been as clear as I could have been.
You can have an AoO when a reach CMB is used against you. The rules seem quite clear to me that reach weapons cannot be used for targets within 5' of you - so if you have a reach weapon and someone beside you uses a CMB on you, you are unable to use the reach weapon to perform the AoO. You can use improved unarmed strike, claws, spiked gauntlets, etc. in your AoO. Of course, if you don't have any of those, you are out of luck.
Ciretose and you both have an idea of what you'd like the rules to be, and I think that I laid that out for you previously. Work through it.
You have laid out your arguments quite clearly, as have Ciretose and I. We have different interpretations of what the rules mean.
Secondly, since when can you use an unimproved unarmed strike for an AOO?
My apologies, I should have and meant to type in "improved unarmed strike".
Besides, in the end the only thing that would matter if a developer came in here would be to tell us who is going to be house ruling. I don't think it's going to change how we run our games overall.
If a developer came in an said that you were correct and that I had gotten it wrong, I probably wouldn't house rule back to what would have been my "incorrect" interpretation. I prefer to keep house rules to a minimum.
I would adjust the tactics of my NPCs or PC (if I get to play).
|
My read is that the CMB provokes an AoO, even if you do not threaten the square where the creature making the attack is located.I understand where your argument is coming from and I can see it, but I do not agree with it. Common sense, my interpretation of RAI and RAW, sword fighting experience (I know, I know, don't bring real life stuff into a fantasy setting - but it was the fantasy game that got me into swordfighting - to me, they are linked :))
Many things provoke an aoo. Provoking an aoo does not mean you can take an aoo.
I'm sure you've seen examples in real life where if a person had two more inches of reach, they would be able to exploit a hole in an opponent's defense.
This is similar. Provoking means that a hole appears. But it has no bearing on whether you've got the extra reach to take advantage of it.
The entire chain of an attack of opportunity is not contained in the provoke module.
If you look at page 180, under attacks of opportunity, it breaks down the disparate elements.
1. Threatened squares and reach.
2. Provoking
3. Making an attack of opportunity
So, say a particular combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from you. What happens next?
You move to making an attack of opportunity. This leads you to making a single melee attack. You must fulfill the requirements of making a melee attack. There is no entry that overrules this.
Even the specific principle only applies to provoking an attack, not to executing that attack.
The argument isn't about whether an attack is provoked. It's about whether the creature who has been provoked is in a position to make a legal attack of opportunity. According to the rules of reach, sometimes that creature is not in a position to make a legal attack of opportunity due to the distances involved.
|
|
My read is that the CMB provokes an AoO, even if you do not threaten the square where the creature making the attack is located.I understand where your argument is coming from and I can see it, but I do not agree with it. Common sense, my interpretation of RAI and RAW, sword fighting experience (I know, I know, don't bring real life stuff into a fantasy setting - but it was the fantasy game that got me into swordfighting - to me, they are linked :))
Many things provoke an aoo. Provoking an aoo does not mean you can take an aoo.
I'm sure you've seen examples in real life where if a person had two more inches of reach, they would be able to exploit a hole in an opponent's defense.
This is similar. Provoking means that a hole appears. But it has no bearing on whether you've got the extra reach to take advantage of it.
The entire chain of an attack of opportunity is not contained in the provoke module.
If you look at page 180, under attacks of opportunity, it breaks down the disparate elements.
1. Threatened squares and reach.
2. Provoking
3. Making an attack of opportunitySo, say a particular combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from you. What happens next?
You move to making an attack of opportunity. This leads you to making a single melee attack. You must fulfill the requirements of making a melee attack. There is no entry that overrules this.Even the specific principle only applies to provoking an attack, not to executing that attack.
The argument isn't about whether an attack is provoked. It's about whether the creature who has been provoked is in a position to make a legal attack of opportunity. According to the rules of reach, sometimes that creature is not in a position to make a legal attack of opportunity due to the distances involved.
We've been over this and we disagree. A combat maneuver is neither a distracting act or movement through a threatened square. If it were it would provoke from anyone who threatens them, not just from a single target.
I fully understand the other sides argument. You read it narrowly that an attack of opportunity can only occur if the act that caused it occurred was initiated in a square threatened by whoever is eligible for the attack. I just don't agree with it, for the reasons I have stated and following the evidence I presented in the wall of text on the previous page I feel shows that the developers intent follows my ruling. I read that as rules for the person acting to know the the times when those actions could provoke the attack of opportunity from someone in a square threatening them if they take a distracting action or move through a threatened square, and not as the list of when you can or can not take the AoO presented to you.
And the two sides disagree.
And the two sides are clearly entrenched, and no progress is going to be made without developer input.
And if it doesn't come, it's fine. We're all going to be fine.
|
|
Let me try one more time, laying everything out to answer all questions on my position in one post and give citations...
Here's the problem. Your active and passive provocations are entirely made up. Those terms don't exist in the book. I can see where you could infer them, but there are a lot of other terms or categories you could arbitrarily divide events that provoke attacks of opportunity into.
In your summary post, you didn't make an argument one way or the other as to what these terms changed. You believe what was the intent of the rules? To have active and passive provocations?
The rules already divide attacks of opportunity into two categories: movement based and action based. This is covered on page 180 in provoking an Attack of Opportunity.
In other words, the book defines action-based attacks of opportunity to function the same within the group. Action-based examples would be drinking a potion (from your passive category) or making an unarmed attack (from your active category).
Let's address some of your examples starting with the cloaker. A cloaker has a normal reach of 10ft, but its bite attack is only 5ft. Now we have a reason why a cloaker would be next to a creature without reach before grappling.
Balor: Just like the previous example, the balor may choose to use his whip against an adjacent creature, or one with reach. I wouldn't assume that the entangle ability would only be used against creatures that otherwise couldn't reach the balor.
Yes, the focus is on negating the potential attack of opportunity because otherwise adjacent creatures or creatures with the appropriate reach would still be able to make one. These examples don't provide any weight at all.
As for grab, you made an incorrect assumption. Small and medium creatures have the same 5ft reach. Many large creatures also only havea 5ft reach. I did my own search of the pdf looking for creatures with grab. After the first 20, around 3/4ths of them had grab and a 5ft reach. So again, no evidential weight.
Your argument towards trip emphasizes the element that is missing from your argument.
If you look at the page on trip, a trip attack that fails by 10 or more results in you being knocked prone. Nowhere does your opponent make a check. Or, in other words, you trip over yourself. Initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity. Which grants the opponent a single melee attack which they may or may not be able to take.
The bestiary trip ability grants the creature immunity from falling over their own feet. Nothing more.
We have seen that the bestiary examples provide no bearing on the discussion.
I think you're ignoring the subdivision in the section on attacks of opportunity that clearly separates provoking an attack of opportunity from making one.
I think you're trying to imply that *active provokes* provide the opportunity to make an attack of opportunity even when physical distance renders it impossible, and the subdivision of provoke types is already written into the book and doesn't grant any bonuses.
Your reading implies that a medium creature making an attack with a reach weapon that provokes is under threat of suffering damage from another medium creature without a reach weapon.
Your reading also implies that reach also equals the area that a creature can be attacked from. Otherwise, you could not make the single attack provided by an attack of opportunity. This is clearly false, else we wouldn't have reach. We'd just have bigger creatures.
Your reading ignores the benefits of reach when made with a natural attack. It takes a feat to make a single attack against a limb. Why? Because a limb is not otherwise a valid attack for a target. Why? Because the book details a space for a creature as the valid area to attack, with a reach that extends beyond the space of vulnerability. If this were chess, your pawn would be able to attack the same way as the queen as long as one was on the board.
Finally, your interpretation of the rules relies heavily on an implied characterization of the rules to divide provoking actions of opportunity into two disparate groups. This interpretation ignores the fact that the book already does that, and that the way the book makes this division does not support your opinion. Additionally, you further extrapolate additional rule exceptions for this non-existent rule division that you created in the first place, to allow them to bypass the normal rules restricting the action of making an attack of opportunity, also ignoring the fact that the book clearly subdivides between provoking an attack of opportunity and making an attack of opportunity.
In conclusion, in order to create a scenario where a character can make attacks of opportunity against opponents with natural attacks and reach, you have to ignore existing framework in favor of made-up framework, and then further imply specific exceptions to this non-existent framework, and even more-so ignore existing action segregation to allow this framework to even imply that such an action would be possible. Each step takes you further away from the rules, and does not allow for existing rules that are already in place. Therefore, the original premise must be false based on this argument.
|
|
We've been over this and we disagree. A combat maneuver is neither a distracting act or movement through a threatened square. If it were it would provoke from...
Combat maneuvers are not all one or the other.
Bullrush involves a movement component.Disarm has an action component
Grapple involves both movement and action components.
Overrun has a movement component.
Sunder has an action component
Trip has an action component.
Feint has an action component.
Or, in other words, if it is not movement it requires an action to do. Thus, it is either movement, or a distracting act. Fully provided for in the existing rules.
Have you not learned that it doesn't matter what you, or anyone says? There is no logic or argument that you can form that will be persuasive. There is no point in continuing this conversation.
|
|
We've been over this and we disagree. A combat maneuver is neither a distracting act or movement through a threatened square. If it were it would provoke from...Combat maneuvers are not all one or the other.
Bullrush involves a movement component.
Disarm has an action component
Grapple involves both movement and action components.
Overrun has a movement component.
Sunder has an action component
Trip has an action component.
Feint has an action component.Or, in other words, if it is not movement it requires an action to do. Thus, it is either movement, or a distracting act. Fully provided for in the existing rules.
Except distracting actions and movement actions provoke from all threatening, while combat maneuvers and unarmed only provoke from a single target.
This is the point where the two sides diverge. I believe "provokes from the target" means you do something that provokes and attack from the target" while you add the words "if the target threatens".
As I showed in the text, several times it makes the distinction of "from threatening" which it would not need to do if that was the universal, only way you can be at risk. You are reading that section as "always for all situations" and I am reading that section as "when you have a distracting act or move through a threatened square"
The movement examples above also provoke from threatening opponents if you move through a threatened square, but the CMB attack only provokes from the target, because you have put yourself at risk from the target. You could provoke from all threatening squares if you move to position, but you only threaten from the target for the the CMB because you aren't distracted or moving through a threatened square. If you were, you would provoke from everyone, which is when those rules apply.
Believe me, I've read the same rules as you have. Both sides I'm sure have poured over them, and while the words are the same the interpretation of those words is very different.
Hopefully a developer will clear this up. For all we know they are at this moment having a similar argument in the developers office trying to make a ruling, as it is apparently unclear.
I think both sides are surprised the other side thinks it is unclear and have been playing by the rule they are currently playing by all this time. But it doesn't really come up much in my game under my reading of the rule, because reach creatures wouldn't generally attempt maneuvers they have no training in.
Which seems completely reasonable to me.
|
|
Have you not learned that it doesn't matter what you, or anyone says? There is no logic or argument that you can form that will be persuasive. There is no point in continuing this conversation.
Good to know that you have absolute knowledge about everyone who ever has and ever will read this thread :p
Replying to someone who has replied to me is generally only polite. I see no reason to cheapen the quality or length of my response. Additionally, more well-thought out arguments will only provide more material to be examined when the thread finally does come to faq attention.
Furthermore, there is always the chance that a new argument will be offered up.
Even more so, you are not required to continually refresh this thread. If you are tired of the topic at hand, don't open the page again. Does it damage you in some way if the argument keeps getting rehashed in various forms if you're not reading it?
Finally, it obviously matters what I say, or what other people say. We speak by post. We speak by hitting the faq button. We speak even by not posting. If your argument is that it is impossible to persuade anyone of anything, then I really have to ask you why you are participating in this thread at all, or any thread in the rules forum.
Different arguments are more or less effective on different people. There is every chance that one post will speak more definitively to someone who comes and reads this thread than another post. This is the internet. People will find this particular thread through random searches for some time to come. We're not just making arguments for the current readers, but for future readers who might just check the last page or two of the debate. If you're not interested, that's fine. But don't try to bludgeon others through implied insults to their ability to learn that argument is futile.
This is the point where the two sides diverge. I believe "provokes from the target" means you do something that provokes and attack from the target" while you add the words "if the target threatens".
Not exactly correct. You believe it means "provokes and makes an attack"
I believe it only means "provokes", and that logic sequence moves us to the next element of the action.The section on attack of opportunity separates threatening from provoking from attacking. When it says provoke, there is no specific exception that includes provoke and attack together. Provoke means provoke, not provoke and attack, ect.
I think this is where we disagree. You think that attack is implicit with provoke, while I think that since the book separates them, they should be applied separately, as a logical progression. You could also call it order of operations. You can't hit something without making an attack roll. You can't make an attack roll without an action designation. So on and so forth. Ad nauseam.
Another way to phrase it, maybe?
Separate actions by choices. Someone makes an action against you that provokes. You make a choice, either to attempt an attack or not. After your input, you move to making an attack. You choose what type of attack your attempting. Obviously, it's a melee attack, but you might choose to apply feats, or use it for a combat maneuver. At this point, the validity of your attack is checked, before you make the attack roll. Natural logic tells us that the event is interrupted here. The book separates attacks of opportunity into three separate actions, which also implies separation between provoking, and making an attack.
I am going to tell you something I learned long ago about debating on the boards. If I am in the minority I am probably wrong. Actually every time I have seen a rules debate the minority was incorrect. Now if this was the first page I would say hold on and wait for more posters, but I am sure my side of the argument has more supporters, and other people will probably pop in. I am not as eloquent with words as some of the other posters so I won't try to convince you again, but hopefully someone will come by that can.
|
|
I am going to tell you something I learned long ago about debating on the boards. If I am in the minority I am probably wrong. Actually every time I have seen a rules debate the minority was incorrect. Now if this was the first page I would say hold on and wait for more posters, but I am sure my side of the argument has more supporters, and other people will probably pop in. I am not as eloquent with words as some of the other posters so I won't try to convince you again, but hopefully someone will come by that can.
I don't understand why you and jreyst are so upset someone may not agree with your reading of the rule, and why you feel you have to approach the debate in a "Oh, silly child, I will impart my wisdom upon you" kind of way.
The others on here (Yes I am including you Howie, which is why it was strange you said you were personally insulted, since you did indeed apologize for your comment) are trying to discuss the matter assuming the people who disagree with them may have valid points.
I have learned from this discussion that a rule I thought was very obvious is apparently unclear to some people and that it needs to be written more clearly either way.
That should be the one thing both sides agree on.
I am going to tell you something I learned long ago about debating on the boards. If I am in the minority I am probably wrong.
Right now, it is running about 2 to 1 for those that say you don't get to perform the AoO.
Oh, I will admit that Ciretose and I have done most of the posting (well, mostly Ciretose :)), but others have indicated that they would allow the AoO to happen or that they are not sure how to read the rule.
I know that you are less impressed with the number of people that have hit the FAQ button, but when you consider that 23 people have posted in this thread and 21 people have hit the FAQ button, to me that indicates that clarification is needed (or that people are annoyed enough with Ciretose and myself to want to shut us up :)).
I will go with what ever the ruling is, even if I don't think it is the best way to go about things. But it will change tactics that can and will be used in combat.
I am going to tell you something I learned long ago about debating on the boards. If I am in the minority I am probably wrong. Actually every time I have seen a rules debate the minority was incorrect. Now if this was the first page I would say hold on and wait for more posters, but I am sure my side of the argument has more supporters, and other people will probably pop in. I am not as eloquent with words as some of the other posters so I won't try to convince you again, but hopefully someone will come by that can.I don't understand why you and jreyst are so upset someone may not agree with your reading of the rule, and why you feel you have to approach the debate in a "Oh, silly child, I will impart my wisdom upon you" kind of way.
The others on here (Yes I am including you Howie, which is why it was strange you said you were personally insulted, since you did indeed apologize for your comment) are trying to discuss the matter assuming the people who disagree with them may have valid points.
I have learned from this discussion that a rule I thought was very obvious is apparently unclear to some people and that it needs to be written more clearly either way.
That should be the one thing both sides agree on.
First of all I am not upset, and I am not talking down to you. It seems that way because tone of voice is not conveyed well online. I was just relating a personal experience of mine that has always been true. Now if you are right this will be the first time I have ever seen the minority be correct in a debate. The reason I point this out is because I doubt there is a rule so badly written that the majority of the players interpret it wrong. If it is that badly written I would call for errata, and not just an FAQ.
I am going to tell you something I learned long ago about debating on the boards. If I am in the minority I am probably wrong.
Right now, it is running about 2 to 1 for those that say you don't get to perform the AoO.
Oh, I will admit that Ciretose and I have done most of the posting (well, mostly Ciretose :)), but others have indicated that they would allow the AoO to happen or that they are not sure how to read the rule.
I know that you are less impressed with the number of people that have hit the FAQ button, but when you consider that 23 people have posted in this thread and 21 people have hit the FAQ button, to me that indicates that clarification is needed (or that people are annoyed enough with Ciretose and myself to want to shut us up :)).
I will go with what ever the ruling is, even if I don't think it is the best way to go about things. But it will change tactics that can and will be used in combat.
They said they would allow it as a house rule, and even I said it makes sense from a real life point of view, but disagreed with you from a rules point of view.
|
Toss me on team Wraithstrike. Not going to bother to rehash the reasons why, as they can be found in abundance in this thread, elaborated on much more eloquently than I could ever could. :)
And im 95% sure you will not see a golem poster in this thread, except maybe to mention something about deleting posts and playing nice, or to say the thread has been locked. FAQ is another story however.
I already explained the FAQ situation and why the numbers don't mean anything. I even FAQ'd it, but not because I don't understand the rule. It was more to bring attention to it like I have done other post. I am sure others have done the same.Have you not learned that it doesn't matter what you, or anyone says? There is no logic or argument that you can form that will be persuasive. There is no point in continuing this conversation.21 FAQs...
Just to point out, I've FAQ'd it too for the very same reasons of wraithstrike (and no, I'm not him :D ). I am sure that the RAW for CMB provoking AoOs, and being able to make the AoO with or without reach, are two different things altogether (which is, the CMB provokes, but if the defending creature cannot reach the attacker, it cannot make an AoO - again, the Strike Back feat is made with this specific situation in mind, otherwise it would do nothing at all).
However, clicking of FAQ would alert Paizo staff that the rule is considered somehow ambiguous, and this would be further clarified (like the old 'lock-prone' trap).So no, my clicking on FAQ doesn't mean I find ambiguous the rule. But since there are disagreement on this... an official answer for everybody would be better.
For what it is worth, I believe that ciretose reading of the rules is a great and realistic way to deal with the situation (and the way it should have been from the beginning). Sadly, this is a good house rule but nothing else - the presence of the Strike Back feat is a proof to this.
(Of course, I've been in a similar situation with the Stealth rules and 'virtual' facing, and many many people told me that these were house rules. You know what ? If it works at your table, what is the matter ?)
Simply remove the Strike Back feat (or give it another feature) and call it even.
Just my 2c, and peace to all.
|
|
I already explained the FAQ situation and why the numbers don't mean anything. I even FAQ'd it, but not because I don't understand the rule. It was more to bring attention to it like I have done other post. I am sure others have done the same.Have you not learned that it doesn't matter what you, or anyone says? There is no logic or argument that you can form that will be persuasive. There is no point in continuing this conversation.21 FAQs...Just to point out, I've FAQ'd it too for the very same reasons of wraithstrike (and no, I'm not him :D ). I am sure that the RAW for CMB provoking AoOs, and being able to make the AoO with or without reach, are two different things altogether (which is, the CMB provokes, but if the defending creature cannot reach the attacker, it cannot make an AoO - again, the Strike Back feat is made with this specific situation in mind, otherwise it would do nothing at all).
However, clicking of FAQ would alert Paizo staff that the rule is considered somehow ambiguous, and this would be further clarified (like the old 'lock-prone' trap).So no, my clicking on FAQ doesn't mean I find ambiguous the rule. But since there are disagreement on this... an official answer for everybody would be better.
For what it is worth, I believe that ciretose reading of the rules is a great and realistic way to deal with the situation (and the way it should have been from the beginning). Sadly, this is a good house rule but nothing else - the presence of the Strike Back feat is a proof to this.
(Of course, I've been in a similar situation with the Stealth rules and 'virtual' facing, and many many people told me that these were house rules. You know what ? If it works at your table, what is the matter ?)Simply remove the Strike Back feat (or give it another feature) and call it even.
Just my 2c, and peace to all.
So you are in the camp of "You are wrong about the rule, but the rule should be the way you see it."
Which could lead to an outcome I am perfectly fine with, that being I was wrong about the reading (past tense) but that is now the rule (present tense).
I wonder how many other people feel this way?
And to be clear, I fully understand based on the WoTC FAQ that was the official rule for 3.5.
|
|
I don't think I have contradicted myself. I may not have been as clear as I could have been.You can have an AoO when a reach CMB is used against you. The rules seem quite clear to me that reach weapons cannot be used for targets within 5' of you - so if you have a reach weapon and someone beside you uses a CMB on you, you are unable to use the reach weapon to perform the AoO.
Why not?
I think that the rules are just as clear that you can't use a non-reach weapon to make an attack outside of your reach, are you doubting this?
You have an idea here, but its not properly stated. I would suggest that you look back at what I was suggesting and try to put it in your own words. Then try to translate that into a form that you could imagine being in a rule book.
You want to be able to have a PC with reach 5' be able to make an attack against a target 10' away with a dagger.
But you do not want it to be the case that a PC with reach 5' could make an attack against a target entirely within 5' with a polearm.
Both of these boil down to the rules on making an attack dealing with the reach of the weapon. Until you handle this to be able to properly separate them you will indeed be contradicting yourself.
In one situation you deny the attack even though it was provoked because of the squares the weapon threatens not including the target, while in the other you allow the attack in spite of that same failure in qualifying to make an attack.
-James
By our logic, the combat maneuver causes direct interaction, and it is that direct interaction that causes the threat, and that doesn't occur 5 feet away.
If I move in next to you and try to disarm, you can't stab me with the long spear because the part of the long spear that does damage isn't next able to attack where the point of interaction is.
There seem to be confusion that we are saying you are attacking the entire arm, and that isn't the issue. The provocation occurs at the point of contact, and so you need to be able to do something at the point of contact or be in reach for the main part of the creature.
Ah, yet another "how many FAQs does it take to get to the center of a rules question" thread!
Ah, yet another "how many FAQs does it take to get to the center of a rules question" thread!
In a completely somewhat related topic I have often what determines if the devs answer a question here as opposed to waiting for an FAQ other than personal preference.
PS:I am not rushing anyone, plus this allows me to bump the thread.
Except distracting actions and movement actions provoke from all threatening, while combat maneuvers and unarmed only provoke from a single target.
This is the point where the two sides diverge.
Nope, but you're close. Everyone agrees that drinking a potion provokes from everyone, and a CM provokes only from the target.
Where we disagree, is whether the rules about a CM only provoking from one target automatically grant that target the ability to Make an attack when he otherwise couldn't.
I believe "provokes from the target" means you do something that provokes and attack from the target" while you add the words "if the target threatens".
Again, you have the opposing argument wrong. A Strawman, almost.
We all agree the CM provokes. Even if the target doesn't threaten the square.
Provoking the attack does not guarantee the target can make the attack.
Let me sum things up one more time, in case you care to respond to the argument, instead of re-stating the rules we all agree on.
Everyone agrees that: performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver.
Our reading of the rules: In order for the target of the maneuver to make that attack, he must follow the rules about making an attack of opportunity.
Your reading of the rules: The target of a combat maneuver can make an attack of opportunity against the weapon or limb making the maneuver, so long as they threaten their own square, and in the case of a weapon, any damage done to the weapon performing the maneuver is counted as a penalty to the CMB of the creature wielding it. This ability to make an attack against a limb or weapon does not apply to making an attack of opportunity against an opponent that provoked from more than one target.
I don't care if you agree with me about the ruling, I just want you to understand what our point is. You say you fully understand our argument, but you haven't addressed the point, which makes me think you don't really understand the distinction.