| 27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Myself and a fellow poster have a disagreement about CMB checks. I say that if you don't threaten an area an opponent is in, and the opponent(let's say a dragon) has reach then you just have to suck it up. He says the monster's limb is exposed and therefore you get an attack of opportunity because threatened squares and attacks of opportunity are two different things.
There is a rule that says unless otherwise stated CMB's provoke. I take this as meaning feats and abilities that allow you to by pass it such as grab, and improved trip.
The "unless otherwise stated" portion applies to the ruling that you can only make an attack of opportunity if you threaten the target, does it not?
Myself and a fellow poster have a disagreement about CMB checks. I say that if you don't threaten an area an opponent is in, and the opponent(let's say a dragon) has reach then you just have to suck it up. He says the monster's limb is exposed and therefore you get an attack of opportunity because threatened squares and attacks of opportunity are two different things.
There is a rule that says unless otherwise stated CMB's provoke. I take this as meaning feats and abilities that allow you to by pass it such as grab, and improved trip.
I know I am replying to myself. I am only FAQ'ing this because while I disagree with the other poster I do understand where he is coming from, and it could appear to be a specific overrule general.
The "unless otherwise stated" portion applies to the ruling that you can only make an attack of opportunity if you threaten the target, does it not?
That is my feeling on the matter along with feats and abilities that say there is no threat.
|
Myself and a fellow poster have a disagreement about CMB checks. I say that if you don't threaten an area an opponent is in, and the opponent(let's say a dragon) has reach then you just have to suck it up. He says the monster's limb is exposed and therefore you get an attack of opportunity because threatened squares and attacks of opportunity are two different things.
There is a rule that says unless otherwise stated CMB's provoke. I take this as meaning feats and abilities that allow you to by pass it such as grab, and improved trip.
To take an attack of opportunity, you must threaten the space occupied by the target. The CMB might provoke, but if you don't threaten, you can't take advantage of it. While not specifically addressing CMBs, this goes back to 3.5.
That said, there is a 3.5 FAQ entry, (pp 66-7) in which a house rule is provided to permit the AoO on those type of provoking attacks that become CMBs, when they come into contact with the target.
So, unless there is a PF specific rule that allows the AoO, you are correct, but your debate partner is presenting a common variation. If debating RAW, the necessity of an AoO threatening the space is the relevant rule, and the burden of proof is on him to provide the rule that generates the exception; that CMBs provoke is insufficient.
|
I would allow the attack of Opp if the attacker did not have the improved "x" feat.
For example, grapple states:
Grapple
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
no, "may provoke" but "provokes".
If an ogre (reach 10') reaches out and grabs a rogue, that rogue is going to get a free (attack of opportunity) on the ogre's arm.
As for the "unless otherwise stated", I think that this falls under the idea that the specific overrides the general. So, while the general rule says that the rogue does not get an AoO, since they do not threaten the ogre, the specific rule, that the ogre does not have improved grapple, overrides that and allows the rogue to get an AoO against that attack.
At least, that is how I see it.
Now, that having been said, take a look at this scenario. Fighter A has a guisarme (reach/trip weapon) and goes to trip a rogue. Mr. A does not have improved trip, so he normally would generate an AoO from the rogue, but what is the rogue going to hit?
|
|
Myself and a fellow poster have a disagreement about CMB checks. I say that if you don't threaten an area an opponent is in, and the opponent(let's say a dragon) has reach then you just have to suck it up. He says the monster's limb is exposed and therefore you get an attack of opportunity because threatened squares and attacks of opportunity are two different things.
There is a rule that says unless otherwise stated CMB's provoke. I take this as meaning feats and abilities that allow you to by pass it such as grab, and improved trip.
To be clear on where we disagree and why I believe they are different.
1. Combat maneuvers specifically say they provoke AoO only from the target, as opposed to say drinking a potion which provokes from anyone who threatens you.
2. The section on reach weapons and threatened areas applies specifically to reach weapons. When attacking with a reach weapon, you are at risk to having the manuever countered, or losing your weapon, despite normally not being at risk as your target isn't in a "threat" range.
3. If reach negates the negative effect of combat maneuvers, anything with reach can combat manuever without training with no risk of negative effect, which makes the penalty of the rule irrelevent for a large portion of the game world.
This started from a scenario where a fighter charged a dragon and was disarmed on the way without having improved disarm. By the above ruling, there was no attack of opportunity allowed.
If you reach in with your hand to take a weapon from a trained fighter without having any training on how to do so, and with the rule saying specifically that the act provokes an attack of opportunity from the target, logically your target should be able to act as the rule is written.
Reach weapons could be disarmed, despite being out of threat range, why would arms on large creatures be immune to any penalty for using a feat untrained?
You must threaten the space a creature occupies in order to be able to attack it. If a creature has longer reach than you and does something that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you are certainly entitled to an AoO. The problem is, it is useless since you can not reach the enemy. By the rules, you lose. You get nothing. Good day sir. As stated previously there was a 3.5 FAQ that said it might not be a terrible idea to allow an attack on an arm or foot or whatever is entering your threatened area, but that by no means makes it official. The official rules are that you do not get an attack (or rather, you can attack all you want, but you aren't going to hurt the enemy since you can't reach his space.)
|
|
You must threaten the space a creature occupies in order to be able to attack it. If a creature has longer reach than you and does something that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you are certainly entitled to an AoO. The problem is, it is useless since you can not reach the enemy. By the rules, you lose. You get nothing. Good day sir. As stated previously there was a 3.5 FAQ that said it might not be a terrible idea to allow an attack on an arm or foot or whatever is entering your threatened area, but that by no means makes it official. The official rules are that you do not get an attack (or rather, you can attack all you want, but you aren't going to hurt the enemy since you can't reach his space.)
The combat maneuver system did not exist in 3.5.
The fact that it isn't an action that provokes an attack of opportunity from a threatened square (only from the target) indicates to me the threatened square isn't the issue, rather making yourself vulnerable to the target by acting in an untrained manner.
Using the rogue grabbed by the ogre example, you must be able defend yourself from an untrained combat maneuver, otherwise the imroved feats are largely pointless for creatures with reach.
The combat manevers that provoke are the ones that put you in direct contact with the enemy, by the action you attempt.
It's not about provoking, it's about making an attack of opportunity.
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
Therefore, if you do not threaten the square, you cannot make a melee attack into that square.
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack."
Conclusion: If you do not threaten the square, you cannot make an attack of opportunity into that square.
You are arguing that the creature has entered into such a range by some natural extremity. If you can attack such, why could you not ready an action to do so when the extremity is within reach of your weapons?
You can, if you have a readied action, BAB +11, and the Strike Back feat.
"You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you."
I see no reason why this feat would not work against combat maneuvers that are made in place of a melee attack.
To be clear on where we disagree and why I believe they are different.
1. Combat maneuvers specifically say they provoke AoO only from the target, as opposed to say drinking a potion which provokes from anyone who threatens you.
You may only take an attack of opportunity when you threaten an opponent.
2. The section on reach weapons and threatened areas applies specifically to reach weapons. When attacking with a reach weapon, you are at risk to having the manuever countered, or losing your weapon, despite normally not being at risk as your target isn't in a "threat" range.
The section on reach weapons states that your reach may be increased. If your reach is increased, then you can take the attack of opportunity. If is not, then you are stuck with the first part of the rule.
3. If reach negates the negative effect of combat maneuvers, anything with reach can combat manuever without training with no risk of negative effect, which makes the penalty of the rule irrelevent for a large portion of the game world.
Reach does not negate the negative effects of combat maneuvers. Reach minimizes the consequences of combat maneuvers. This scenario would hold true for a human versus a cat as well as an ogre versus a dwarf. Size matters.
This started from a scenario where a fighter charged a dragon and was disarmed on the way without having improved disarm. By the above ruling, there was no attack of opportunity allowed.
Sounds like it was done correctly. Note that even if the dragon had failed by 10 or more, he would not have been subject to a disarm attempt, negating one of the consequences of disarm attempts.
If you reach in with your hand to take a weapon from a trained fighter without having any training on how to do so, and with the rule saying specifically that the act provokes an attack of opportunity from the target, logically your target should be able to act as the rule is written.
The act still provoked an attack of opportunity but the fighter was unable to take advantage of it. Reach is a huge advantage and I can easily see a larger creature smacking a weapon out of a fighter's hands even if he doesn't have the Improved Disarm feat. There is a reason why lances are preferred weapons over daggers from horseback.
Reach weapons could be disarmed, despite being out of threat range, why would arms on large creatures be immune to any penalty for using a feat untrained?
The chance to have the ranged weapon disarmed isn't because of a lack of training. It's because the disarming attempt could fail by 10 or more.
|
|
The fact that it isn't an action that provokes an attack of opportunity from a threatened square (only from the target) indicates to me the threatened square isn't the issue, rather making yourself vulnerable to the target by acting in an untrained manner.
But how do you say that you can successfully attack a creature that is outside of the reach of your weapon?
You are arguing that the creature has entered into such a range by some natural extremity.
If you can attack such, why could you not ready an action to do so when the extremity is within reach of your weapons?
I understand that this is not an AOO, but it is the ability to make the attack.
You wouldn't let a paralyzed foe make an AOO against someone who provokes it by grappling them or the like, right?
And why not? Because they cannot make the attack.
Again its a fine house rule, and in fact its on the level of house rules that should be official rules. But that's not the issue here.
-James
A paralysed foe can't attack, that is a red herring.
I believe the wording indicates that attempting to disarm/trip/grapple/etc...by their nature put you at risk from the target because you must move either yourself or a weapon into threat range to execute them.
If you can disarm the weapon (an attack action) that isn't in your threat range, it is clearly in your range as the target.
The key wording is "target" rather that "enemies threatening you"
For reach and AoO, I agree with Ciretose.
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.
As to why is this different than a normal attack, well the reach creature isn't trying to slam, claw, bite, etc... the first piece that it can get to. It is trying to go for a specific piece, whether it is trying to disarm, grab, grapple, etc..
The dragon in the example would still have had a chance to disarm the fighter. In the worst case, the dragon would have taken a penalty to it's attack roll equal to the damage the fighter did to it as it reached for him, if the fighter managed to hit.
The strike back feat allows you to attack a creature with reach that is only attacking you, not opening itself up to your AoO by using a CMB.
There really is no debate here. You can not attack a creature that you do not threaten. End of story. You may think you can attack its tentacle, arm, foot, fingernail, hair, sleeve, ankle bracelet, if it enters your threatened area or space, but you can not... without the assistance of certain feats.
Sorry, but you can't.
If you want to house rule that you can, that's a different story, but officially you can't.
I already provided the post that showed someone has to be in threat range from a developer
I can't seem to locate that link/post. Could you provide it again please?
There really is no debate here. You can not attack a creature that you do not threaten. End of story.
Could you please respond to Ciretose and my posts on our impression that this is a specific vs general rule?
Are you talking about the Strike Back feat or other feats?
There really is no debate here. You can not attack a creature that you do not threaten. End of story. You may think you can attack its tentacle, arm, foot, fingernail, hair, sleeve, ankle bracelet, if it enters your threatened area or space, but you can not... without the assistance of certain feats.
Sorry, but you can't.
If you want to house rule that you can, that's a different story, but officially you can't.
Yep.
It's a very good houserule, and makes more sense than RAW, than but it's an houserule.
|
|
There really is no debate here. You can not attack a creature that you do not threaten. End of story. You may think you can attack its tentacle, arm, foot, fingernail, hair, sleeve, ankle bracelet, if it enters your threatened area or space, but you can not... without the assistance of certain feats.
Sorry, but you can't.
If you want to house rule that you can, that's a different story, but officially you can't.
We have a different reading of the rule.
If a dev come in here and says you are correct I will concede and tell everyone I've played with we've been house ruling it.
At this point, it doesn't follow the same rules as "actions" in threatened sqaures regarding who can take advantage of the AoO. If you drink a potionn everyone gets a swing. Not so with maneuvers.
If you do not get an attack of opportunity, anyone with reach can use maneuvers without any risk of AoO, despite that being the primary penalty of doing it untrained.
|
|
There really is no debate here. You can not attack a creature that you do not threaten. End of story. You may think you can attack its tentacle, arm, foot, fingernail, hair, sleeve, ankle bracelet, if it enters your threatened area or space, but you can not... without the assistance of certain feats.
Sorry, but you can't.
If you want to house rule that you can, that's a different story, but officially you can't.
Yep.
It's a very good houserule, and makes more sense than RAW, than but it's an houserule.
If the Devs say so, I'll concede and argue for them to change the rule :)
These discussions are the best part of the messageboard.
Using this logic, does it then mean than anyone attacking me is somehow "entering" my square (with an arm, leg, head, pseudopod, etc) and thereby provoking an AoO?
Only if they are doing a CMB and don't have the improved version feat
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
It seems to me that the rules indicate you could not make the attack of opportunity, since you could not normally attack the target.
However, if this were to come up in my game, I would probably let the player make the attack of opportunity. Large or larger creatures tend to have very good CMB, so it's likely the player will be affected by the combat maneuver. I would throw them a bone and let them attack.
Let's take this step-by-step.
I always thought that if an enlarged Human made a Grapple attempt (or other Combat Maneuver) from 10 ft away on a medium Human, then the medium Human would get an attack of opportunity, but now I'm not sure.
You are technically correct in that the medium human is entitled to take an AoO. He just can't hit anything, because he doesn't threaten the enlarged human that is 10 ft. away from him. So yes, the enlarged human provokes, and the medium human may attack all he wants. He just can't hit anything. The enlarged human is not in his threatened area.
On the flipside, I have always allowed NPCs with reach weapons to make Combat Maneuvers without provoking an attack of opportunity if the target cannot reach the NPC.
If something provokes, it provokes. You don't make it not provoke. The question is: Even though something is entitled to take an AoO, can it hit the provoker? If not, then don't bother.
I guess my understanding has been that a hand reaching into another creature's square will provoke an attack of opportunity, but a weapon would not. But what if the hand is also a weapon, like with an Ogre?
Don't get confused thinking too in depth about it. The simple solution is, can the creature that you think should get an AoO reach the instigator of the AoO normally? No? Then move on. There's nothing to see here.
But some of this might be 3.5 thinking, and in Pathfinder, a combat maneuver always provokes an attack of opportunity.
It was the same way in 3.5. Of course 3.5 did not have "combat maneuvers" but it still had things that provoked AoO's and this very question came up and was answered in a 3.5 FAQ, as noted above.
I wonder if this means that making a Disarm attempt with a reach weapon means that the attack of opportunity would be made against the reach weapon if you cannot reach the attacker? ...but that would be a Sunder attempt, which also provokes an attack of opportunity.
Again, don't get ahead of yourself. The creature attempting to disarm with a reach weapon provokes if he doesn't have improved disarm. The target, if it can't reach the attacker, gets nothing. Next. That's it.
Hmmm...okay, I've managed to confuse myself now.
I hope the above helps untangle things a bit.
|
|
I hope the above helps untangle things a bit.
I think this was a pretty good breakdown.
To take an AoO, three things have to be in place.
1) The target must have provoked an AoO.
and
2) The attacker must threaten the target.
and
3) The attacker must have an AoO available and be able to act.
Those taking the position that CMB from reach results in AoO are looking at 1), but are ignoring 2). It takes all three. If one of them isn't there, no AoO.
And the objections that there were no CMBs in 3.5 is irrelevant. CMBs aren't special in this matter; they are merely acts that generally provoke. You wouldn't expect to take an AoO on a spellcaster who was out of reach, even though casting a spell provokes. What's different about this is that the target has reached with a part of his body. That isn't the criteria for meeting 2). A figure who's base is within melee reach is the criteria for meeting 2). There are no called shots or options to attack only a body part in this game.
As for this making the Improved Disarm type feats moot for large creatures: No, it doesn't. Two ogres fighting threaten each other from 10 feet away. An ogre fighting a enlarged human swordsman threaten each other from 10 feet away. Fighting large-plus creatures is different than fighting medium and small. The game gives us reach weapons to counter this. It gives us feats like ride-by-attack and spring attack to counter this. It provides all sorts of options.
Tripping, disarming, and any other feats that have a negative consequence following a failure by 10 or more, even with a reach weapon, are a consequence of attacker's action. They are not the result of an action by the target. I don't understand the logic of backfeeding this exception into the Provoke/AoO decision to generate additional exceptions.
But, if only a developer saying something will satisfy some folks, so be it. :)
|
|
I hope the above helps untangle things a bit.I think this was a pretty good breakdown.
To take an AoO, three things have to be in place.
1) The target must have provoked an AoO.
and
2) The attacker must threaten the target.
and
3) The attacker must have an AoO available and be able to act.
Those taking the position that CMB from reach results in AoO are looking at 1), but are ignoring 2). It takes all three. If one of them isn't there, no AoO.
And the objections that there were no CMBs in 3.5 is irrelevant. CMBs aren't special in this matter; they are merely acts that generally provoke. You wouldn't expect to take an AoO on a spellcaster who was out of reach, even though casting a spell provokes. What's different about this is that the target has reached with a part of his body. That isn't the criteria for meeting 2). A figure who's base is within melee reach is the criteria for meeting 2). There are no called shots or options to attack only a body part in this game.
As for this making the Improved Disarm type feats moot for large creatures: No, it doesn't. Two ogres fighting threaten each other from 10 feet away. An ogre fighting a enlarged human swordsman threaten each other from 10 feet away. Fighting large-plus creatures is different than fighting medium and small. The game gives us reach weapons to counter this. It gives us feats like ride-by-attack and spring attack to counter this. It provides all sorts of options.
Tripping, disarming, and any other feats that have a negative consequence following a failure by 10 or more, even with a reach weapon, are a consequence of attacker's action. They are not the result of an action by the target. I don't understand the logic of backfeeding this exception into the Provoke/AoO decision to generate additional exceptions.
But, if only a developer saying something will satisfy some folks, so be it. :)
The conversation has been civil so far, you are both better than the tone.
If the rule was obvious, there wouldn't be so many FAQ requests.
Combat manevuers are new and what my group thought was a clear rule one way your group thinks is clear another way.
There is no need to be disagreeable when we disagree.
|
|
The conversation has been civil so far, you are both better than the tone.
If the rule was obvious, there wouldn't be so many FAQ requests.
Combat manevuers are new and what my group thought was a clear rule one way your group thinks is clear another way.
There is no need to be disagreeable when we disagree.
With all respect, I don't find anything disagreeable with either of the prior two posts. You and Mist have provided your rationales. It's been rebutted. That is the nature of debate. My tone was matter-of-fact; I wouldn't characterize it as disagreeable. What amongst my argument do you find either false or invalid? What in my post did you find disagreeable, that I say you're wrong and provide evidence for why I have that opinion?
|
|
With all respect, I don't find anything disagreeable with either of the prior two posts. You and Mist have provided your rationales. It's been rebutted. That is the nature of debate. My tone was matter-of-fact; I wouldn't characterize it as disagreeable. What amongst my argument do you find either false or invalid? What in my post did you find disagreeable, that I say you're wrong and provide evidence for why I have that opinion?The conversation has been civil so far, you are both better than the tone.
If the rule was obvious, there wouldn't be so many FAQ requests.
Combat manevuers are new and what my group thought was a clear rule one way your group thinks is clear another way.
There is no need to be disagreeable when we disagree.
As to tone, for you the last line. But the post two above was the one that was more problematic to me.
But back on topic. By your sides reading of the rule.
1. You can't disarm a natural weapon, so disarm fail is completely negated by reach, which was the example given that started this.
2. Grappling brings the opponent next to you if successful, but has no consequence if attempted untrained.
3. Same for unarmed attacks despite fighting sharp objects barehanded.
4. You could overrun or bullrush without provoking, but if you fail you provoke, since you are next to them at that point. But the rule says the damage from AoO is part of the dice roll deciding outcome, so do you still get the AoO after the fail that it provoked?
It seems clear the intent was that the action put you at risk from who you are attacking, specifically, because of the nature of the action.
We may have to agree to disagree.
If it is going to take a developer to convince you then maybe we do have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it.
If it is going to take a developer to convince you then maybe we do have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it.
And it seems that it will take a developer to convince you that your interpretation is incorrect :)
I don't think it is a feeling of entitlement, but it is one way to resolve the issue when two or more groups have different interpretations of the rules. It is likely the best way to do so, especially if there is organized play that may be involved.
We seem to be at an impasse otherwise, besides the agreement to disagree.
|
|
As to tone, for you the last line. But the post two above was the one that was more problematic to me.
Curious. So, you say:
If a dev come in here and says you are correct I will concede and tell everyone I've played with we've been house ruling it.
and
If the Devs say so, I'll concede and argue for them to change the rule :)
To whit: People have said things, the discussion cannot sway you, and only a voice of authority would alter your perspective. And this is not disagreeable nor problematic for you. Yet I hold up a mirror and bounce back a slightly altered image of what you have projected:
But, if only a developer saying something will satisfy some folks, so be it. :)
And that is disagreeable to you.
I'm not trying to drum this in or make you feel uncomfortable. I'm just pointing out why I thought what I said wasn't disagreeable. In conversation, it is generally a sign of engagement to restate the words of your conversational partner, which is what I did. In retrospect, I guess it is a bit condescending, for which I apologize.
As for the post above mine, I found it to be presented with humor. I guess the old adage about the flat delivery of the printed word sans smiley being sure to offend is alive and well. :)
But back on topic. By your sides reading of the rule.
1. You can't disarm a natural weapon, so disarm fail is completely negated by reach, which was the example given that started this.
Correct. True in 3.5. True in PF. It's good to be a big dragon. :) Players in a disarm heavy campaign may wish to invest in locking gauntlets, wrist straps, etc.
2. Grappling by a creature with more reach than the opponent brings the opponent next to you if successful, but has no consequence if attempted untrained.
I added the clause in italics for clarity.
Correct. It's just plain good to be big. :)
3. Same for unarmed attacks despite fighting sharp objects barehanded.
Correct.
4. You could overrun or bullrush without provoking, but if you fail you provoke, since you are next to them at that point. But the rule says the damage from AoO is part of the dice roll deciding outcome, so do you still get the AoO after the fail that it provoked?
Overrun, by definition, takes place by attempting to move through your target's square. Without training, it provokes, and as they are attempting to move through your square, they must be adjacent to you. So, I don't see the problem here.
Bullrush, under the SRD, required that you enter the opponent's square. In PF, it doesn't. So, apparently it can be done without provoking by using reach. Failure results in being in front of the target; it doesn't say directly in front (as overrun does), nor does it say adjacent. I don't see why there would be an AoO at this point as a necessity..what's the triggering event? In any case, the AoO comes before if it is possible at all, not after.
In both cases, being big is either an advantage or no worse off. Big is good.
It seems clear the intent was that the action put you at risk from who you are attacking, specifically, because of the nature of the action.
I agree. However that assumption of risk can only be acted upon if the target is able. The consequence of my perspective is that being big is an advantage, negates risk in many circumstances due to that advantage, and has means of countering (reach weapons and size parity). I don't find it to be a problem that giants, dragons, and other large creatures are dangerous in different ways.
We may have to agree to disagree.
A useful question that helps distinguish whether I would be swayed by a persuasive conversion, such as this debate, is "what would it take for me to change my mind?" You have said that only the voice of a developer's authority would change your mind, not only about how the rules should work, but by what they even say. If that is the case, I would agree that we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye.
Good gaming!
If it is going to take a developer to convince you then maybe we do have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it.And it seems that it will take a developer to convince you that your interpretation is incorrect :)
I don't think it is a feeling of entitlement, but it is one way to resolve the issue when two or more groups have different interpretations of the rules. It is likely the best way to do so, especially if there is organized play that may be involved.
We seem to be at an impasse otherwise, besides the agreement to disagree.
My words were based on Ciretose saying it would take a developer. You should aim your words at him just as much as you have at me.
edit:The post above this one clarifies much of that.
|
|
If it is going to take a developer to convince you then maybe we do have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it.And it seems that it will take a developer to convince you that your interpretation is incorrect :)
I haven't seen that from Wraith nor from myself. You have your argument. We have ours. We have rebutted yours. You have not rebutted ours. I, for one, don't rely on the voice of authority and am happy to identify when I've been demonstrated to be wrong.
I don't think it is a feeling of entitlement, but it is one way to resolve the issue when two or more groups have different interpretations of the rules. It is likely the best way to do so, especially if there is organized play that may be involved.
It is one way, but only to the degree that parties give the voice of authority the same weight. I, for one, give weight to the FAQ. I give little or no weight to forum pronouncements by developers as authoritative, but do use it to evaluate my perspective yet again. As for organized play, organized play has dealt with rules variance for a decade or more. For transactional issues like this: expect variance and select tactics accordingly. Organized play needs firm answers on matters that affect character build resources that can't be changed. Not on stuff like this.
I don't get how this is unclear. You can't attack something you can't reach. You can't call shots to attack arms and legs. The attacker is not in any space you threaten, ergo, you can not attack it.
The end.
If you can't accept that then fine, wait for someone with a golem next to their name to say the same thing.
|
|
I don't get how this is unclear. You can't attack something you can't reach. You can't call shots to attack arms and legs. The attacker is not in any space you threaten, ergo, you can not attack it.
The end.
If you can't accept that then fine, wait for someone with a golem next to their name to say the same thing.
And I equally don't understand how you have come to your conclusion.
Since a failed Overrun and Bull Rush end in a square next to the enemy, when does the AoO occur if the enemy initiated the combat maneuver from outside of the threat area using reach?
If the act provokes AoO, why can't anyone threatening the person take the AoO, why is it limited specifically to the target.
There are 10 people who FAQ'ed this. I find it just as clear as you do, but we are are on opposite sides of the rule. Your condescending tone isn't helpful.
|
|
If it is going to take a developer to convince you then maybe we do have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I wonder if them popping up to help us out from time to time has made people feel entitled to it.And it seems that it will take a developer to convince you that your interpretation is incorrect :)I haven't seen that from Wraith nor from myself. You have your argument. We have ours. We have rebutted yours. You have not rebutted ours. I, for one, don't rely on the voice of authority and am happy to identify when I've been demonstrated to be wrong.
I don't think it is a feeling of entitlement, but it is one way to resolve the issue when two or more groups have different interpretations of the rules. It is likely the best way to do so, especially if there is organized play that may be involved.It is one way, but only to the degree that parties give the voice of authority the same weight. I, for one, give weight to the FAQ. I give little or no weight to forum pronouncements by developers as authoritative, but do use it to evaluate my perspective yet again. As for organized play, organized play has dealt with rules variance for a decade or more. For transactional issues like this: expect variance and select tactics accordingly. Organized play needs firm answers on matters that affect character build resources that can't be changed. Not on stuff like this.
Which is why I clicked FAQ.
My position is that I believe I am right, but I will concede if a developer who wrote the rules says that wasn't the intent.
Your position seems to be that you are right, regardless of what anyone says.
Which position leans more to "entitlement" in your opinion?
Evidence supporting my position:
1) The fact that you can not attack something you can not reach. If a creature with reach attacks you, and it is not occupying a space you threaten, you don't suddenly get the reach ability. You can not attack a creature you can not reach.
2) This was already cleared up years ago. Please see this document, turn to page 66, bottom-right column. Note that this is the very LAST FAQ Wizards of the Coast released before killing 3.5. Paizo has never indicated they have explicitly changed this rule, so it's pretty safe, based on #1 (above) that it still applies:
If an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all?
Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. Thus, if an ogre tried to sunder your elf’s longsword from 10 feet away, you wouldn’t get an attack of opportunity against the ogre (since an elf wielding a longsword doesn’t threaten an enemy 10 feet away). This is true even if the ogre is reaching out with his hand, such as when trying to grapple you.
Even the Close-Quarters Fighting feat doesn’t help, since that feat applies only when the attack of opportunity against a grappling foe normally would be denied by “a feat or special ability that would normally bypass the attack” and lists Improved Grapple and improved grab as examples.
If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact with you or your space, you can make an attack of opportunity against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt).
Is that good enough? I can't help any more than that.
|
|
3.5 FAQ quote
Combat Maneuvers are the biggest change between 3.5 and Pathfinder. An entirely new system designed to fix the flaws with the old system. One of the many flaws of the old system was the confusion of the above.
Why would I assume that a rule that applied to the area changed most between 3.5 and Pathfinder followed the same logically flawed rule?
There was no CMB or CMD in 3.5 and how grapple and trip were adjudicated were clearly considered flawed since they rewrote that entire system.
The rule seems very clear to me, otherwise it wouldn't indicate only the target gets the AoO and it wouldn't have situations like Grapple and Bullrush where either the move (grapple) or failing the move (bullrush) brings a player into threat range, but by your reading doesn't allow them to take the AoO until after the success or failure is determined, despite damage being part of what determines success or failure.
Sigh. I'm reminded of that line "some men you just can't reach."
I'm out.
Sigh. I'm reminded of that line "some men you just can't reach."
I'm out.
Actually, that's the one thing I agree with ciretose about.
The assumption that any rule 3.5 has that Pathfinder hasn't explicitly mentioned is still in effect just doesn't work anymore. You cannot apply outdated mechanics to a system that didn't even exist in that version.
This is just like all that Reach 10-15 ft. mumbo jumbo that I wanted to get faq'd.
|
|
My position is that I believe I am right, but I will concede if a developer who wrote the rules says that wasn't the intent.
Your position seems to be that you are right, regardless of what anyone says.
That isn't my position, so please don't put words in my mouth.
My position is that the rules can be understood by reading them, understanding the structure of the exception based system (both what it is and what it isn't), and logic. My position is that I can be convinced by someone employing a persuasive speech and the use of evidence and logic. I asked you to find where my facts were false or where my chain of logic was invalid. You did neither. You asked about bullrush and overrun. I answered and you ignored it when I provided answers that are consistent with the rules.
The stated I give weight to the FAQ, which contains considered replies by the developers, a point you acknolwedged and then mischaracterized as saying that I wouldn't listen to what anyone says. I've stated that I don't give weight to the forum postings of developers. The reason, simply is that they are not as considered, are at times inconsistent, subject to reversal, and non-systematic regarding being able to subsequently reference them.
Which position leans more to "entitlement" in your opinion?
I don't understand your question.
|
|
Since a failed Overrun and Bull Rush end in a square next to the enemy, when does the AoO occur if the enemy initiated the combat maneuver from outside of the threat area using reach?
Why do you think an Overrun is made from outside the threat area when the description of the combat manouver says that an overrun involves the attacker entering the square?
Why do you think that a failed Bull Rush ends adjacent to the enemy? The rules don't say this happens.
Why do you think an AoO necessarily occurs with a failed manouver? AoOs, if possible and available, take place PRIOR to the manouver, not after.
I cited several of those points above; you don't refute them and just repeat this.
If the act provokes AoO, why can't anyone threatening the person take the AoO, why is it limited specifically to the target.
The rules specificially say so. What is the point of calling this out?
|
|
Combat Maneuvers are the biggest change between 3.5 and Pathfinder. An entirely new system designed to fix the flaws with the old system. One of the many flaws of the old system was the confusion of the above.
Why would I assume that a rule that applied to the area changed most between 3.5 and Pathfinder followed the same logically flawed rule?
There was no CMB or CMD in 3.5 and how grapple and trip were adjudicated were clearly considered flawed since they rewrote that entire system.
I recognize that there is a body of players who want to sever the link between 3.5 SRD and Pathfinder. I don't understand why, but I recognize it is true.
While there was no CMB or CMD in 3.5, the skeleton of the system is the same:
1) Attacker does something weird.
2) It provokes 1 or more AoO.
3) The AoO(s) can be prevented by a feat.
4) The result is adjucated.
5) There may be consequences to the attacker.
While the details changed, where they changed was largely in step 4 and 5. The discussion at hand is in step 2.
Step 2 is covered by the rules on provoking AoOs and when they can be taken. This section of the rules has not changed. The fact that it hasn't changed is why the 3.5 FAQ is still meaningful in understanding the rules.
Several, if not all, of the special attacks changed. The reason was that many people found them too difficult, so there was an attempt to simplify them. WotC even marketed 4e in part on saying they were too complicated..everyone should leave 3.5 to get away from the horrid grapple rules. Pathfinder's approach was to simplify them. Complexity equals flawed in the sense that they were more complex than casual players could grasp, and even veteren players often had to look them up.
I think this is the second time this poster has mentioned this... that you can't attack a limb when it gets within your reach, but it seems like there is an example of how to do this in the Incorporeal creature entry:
"An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect."
I know that total cover and being out of reach are not the same things, but both are situations that do not let you attack, but in the above example, when the attacking part is no longer in that situation (i.e. total cover), you can attack it even if the rest of the creature is still in that same situation.
My position there would be that it is intended to be a balancing decision so as not to completely screw players. Otherwise an incorporeal creature would always attack out of the floor and be invincible. Also, its an exception, which is explicitly stated as such.
So, I don't know why this would only work against incorporeal creature.
Because it says it does. Because its an exception. If the other cases were supposed to work that way it would say so.
I would think it also works for earth elements in the earthen ground.
You might think so, but since it doesn't say it does, it doesn't.
...And if limbs do count as valid targets in this instance,
but.. they don't. Nowhere does it say you are attacking a limb. It is just as reasonable to assume that *enough* of the creature is exposed to make it a viable target. In any case, it works because it says it does.
...I'm not sure why they wouldn't count as a valid target in a scenario where the situation is "out of reach" instead of "total cover"... that you can in fact attack the limb when it exposes itself despite the rest of the creature still being in that "safe situation.
Just putting a couple more cents but still unsure about this either way.
Again, if you want to house-rule that, that's fine. But, its a house rule. That is *not* how it works. I think its even reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that if you can not reach a target.. ie, the space the target occupies, you can not attack that target. There's pretty much no way around that other than house-rules.
|
Taking it a few steps back to fundamentals, what happens if you allow attacks of opportunity to strike at limbs from creatures with reach. I see no reason why you wouldn't also then be able to strike at reach weapons from players that provoke as well.
Do those limbs moving in and out of your square to attack constitute a valid triggering for attacks of opportunity when they move into/out of your square?
Are the creatures with reach still balanced when you consider their weapons as valid targets for attacks of opportunity?
An attack of opportunity is described as a single melee attack.
Melee attacks are described as being able to strike any opponent within 5 feet.
You can't sunder a natural weapon, or disarm it. That leaves a vanilla attack.
According to 182 crb, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
This implies that an opponent must be adjacent to you in order to be within striking distance. Which brings us to the abstraction of space.
A medium humanoid takes up a 5ft square, and can attack adjacent foes without leaving his square. In order to attack that adjacent creature, his weapon MUST leave his square and enter the enemies, but in game terms it doesn't affect the movement of the humanoid, the position of the humanoid, or the threat range of the humanoid.
Extrapolate that to larger creatures. It doesn't matter whether a flailing tentacle is in the air because the game determines the creatures position based on its size and location, and not based on how many squares it can reach into.
A creature in square 1A with a 15 foot reach, is still in 1A when it attacks into 1D.
More determinative is the feat Strike Back, which specifically deals with readying an action to make attacks against a reach weapon.
All this implies that you cannot take an attack against an object used in a reach attack without a specific feat to do so. Subsequently, it implies that creature area/location determines the area you can threaten, not how far out of that square a particular body part can stretch. Since an attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, having an attack of opportunity trigger does not guarantee that you are in a position to attack, or have a melee weapon to attack with, or any other restriction inherent in making an attack of opportunity.
Note that provoking an attack of opportunity does NOT mean you automatically get to make an attack roll. You still have to meet the other requirements, which include a melee weapon, and being close enough to strike your target with that weapon.
|
|
The rule seems very clear to meSo the reach of the weapon has NO bearing on this, correct?
It doesn't matter what squares the victim of the maneuver can and cannot attack, they get an AOO so they can make an attack.
Right?
That's your claim, right?
-James
No. The weapon very much has a bearing on the matter.
If you attack with a reach weapon, that isn't your arm, I would rule you can only use an AoO against the weapon if the weapon is the method of attack, such as using a specialized weapon for Trip, Disarm or trying Sunder. And if you do, the target also opens themselves up to AoO if unarmed, which makes it unlikely you would try unless you are trained.
It really only comes into play in my games with Natural weapons that can't be disarmed and are a part of your body.