|
Mcbobbo, PHB 180, last line of the Attacks of Opportunity says "all these attacks are at your full attack bonus." Not an unmodified attack bonus.
Not quite. The PFSRD I have in front of me says:
All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
And, it's specifically referring to attacks modified by Combat Reflexes. So I think the most logical reading of it means that Combat Reflexes doesn't reduce your normal attack despite multiple uses.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the vigor behind your attacks.
I apologize. Poor reasoning is kind of a berserk button for me. Would you believe I've been working on it, and actually used to be worse? My CHA is not very high. :( Sorry again. I've cooled off a bit now, so hopefully you can forgive me and we can move forward.
Anyway, to the issue:
1. The words "attack of opportunity" do not need to apear in a link in order for the link to be relevant. The point of rational thought is to connect data points properly, bridging gaps when necessary.
2. My contention is that "normal attack bonus" is not a loaded rules term. Keep in mind that this is a game where iterative attacks exist, and also where a great many "special circumstance" attacks (such as TWF or Rapid Shot) come with special penalties. Thus, someone might come to the topic of AoO's with the thought that they would either come with a penalty, or perhaps use whatever bonus you last used (i.e., if you made an iterative attack during your turn, you might assume that an AoO would be made at the reduced bonus of the last attack you made). I believe the "normal attack bonus" language is merely meant to dispel any such notions.
Furthermore, your interpretation of "normal" as being a loaded rules term would make AoOs immune to attack penalties. This would be in direct conflict with mechanics that give you penalties "until your next turn". It also doesn't really make sense abstractly. It is a HUGE stretch to claim that every bonus and penalty meant to apply to your attacks - be they situational, power-granted, weapon-based, etc - somehow doesn't apply to your AoOs. Why, for instance, would the magic of your +3 longsword suddenly stop working on an AoO? Why would a shaken character take a penalty to attacks on their turn but not on their AoOs?
Basically, you have two options:
• You can believe that "normal attack bonus" is a loaded rules term that doesn't include bonuses/penalties, or
• You can beleive that it's just clarifying that AoOs don't carry their OWN penalties.
If you believe the former, you have to answer a whole bunch of weird questions and explain a laundry list of counterintuitive repercussions. However, if you believe the latter, then suddenly all those issues disappear and everything works. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe the latter than the former.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After your first attack, any time you declare that you're using Power Attack could be considered declaring Power Attack AFTER you have made an attack.
FWIW, I understand and agree with this assessment - for everything but AoO's or things like them that have special rules.
|
Unless such things actually modify your 'normal attack', then AoO's in fact ARE immune to them. Is this, or is it not, what the rules actually say?
The 'normal' attack bonus, refers to the fact it's based on your highest attack roll, and not your iteratives.
If you have BAB+6/+1, and ongoing bonuses from multiple sources equalling +8 (Str, morale, luck, weapon enhancement, whatever), then you have a full attack routine of +14/+9.
If an enemy provokes an AoO, either before your turn, after, or during (via a readied action), you would strike at them with a bonus of +14, (plus or minus any new modifiers, such as flanking).
This is to
a) reduce confusion ("He went for the cure potion between my first and second attack. Do I use +14, or +9?").
b) avoid penalising high-BAB classes, who would be taking a -5/-10/-15 iterative penalty, if the feat were worded to match the bonus of the last attack they made.
|
|
I've cooled off a bit now, so hopefully you can forgive me and we can move forward.
Certainly, and I thank you in return.
The point of rational thought is to connect data points properly, bridging gaps when necessary.
This is true, but I believe that you're adding rules content that simply isn't there. I understand why you're doing it, but it feels like a house rule to me.
My contention is that "normal attack bonus" is not a loaded rules term.
Even with that being true, the common English use of the word 'normal' still supports 'unmodified' as being a reasonable definition for it.
Thus, someone might come to the topic of AoO's with the thought that they would either come with a penalty, or perhaps use whatever bonus you last used (i.e., if you made an iterative attack during your turn, you might assume that an AoO would be made at the reduced bonus of the last attack you made). I believe the "normal attack bonus" language is merely meant to dispel any such notions.
And that makes perfect sense. I simply believe that it goes beyond that. I do feel that this is the intention, to remove iterations as an issue for calculating the attack. I also read this, though, as the developers saying 'screw it, just use the normal attack' - again out of over simplification.
Furthermore, your interpretation of "normal" as being a loaded rules term would make AoOs immune to attack penalties. This would be in direct conflict with mechanics that give you penalties "until your next turn".
Yes it would, but it wouldn't impact AC buffs, concealment, or the like. We're only discussing the attack roll here.
It also doesn't really make sense abstractly. It is a HUGE stretch to claim that every bonus and penalty meant to apply to your attacks - be they situational, power-granted, weapon-based, etc - somehow doesn't apply to your AoOs.
I agree, but the text is pretty clear.
Why, for instance, would the magic of your +3 longsword suddenly stop working on an AoO?
This example is excellent, and that is indeed a gap. I would expect to see the allowable bonus types explained if anyone were to try and clear this up.
Basically, you have two options:
• You can believe that "normal attack bonus" is a loaded rules term that doesn't include bonuses/penalties, or
• You can beleive that it's just clarifying that AoOs don't carry their OWN penalties.
If you believe the former, you have to answer a whole bunch of weird questions and explain a laundry list of counterintuitive repercussions. However, if you believe the latter, then suddenly all those issues disappear and everything works. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe the latter than the former.
Actually, I'd turn that around on you. If you believe the former, as I do, then you just play it as written. No need to modify or explain any more than you explain why AC seldom reflects reality. That's just the way it is, roll the dice and move on.
If you believe the latter, then you have to entertain conversations like this one. Is ONLY the iterative penalty excluded? If so, that seems like it would be really, really easy to write in clear text. The document I'm looking at uses 700 words for AoO's. There was room to say what you're advocating, but they simply didn't say that.
|
|
I gotta agree with Quandary and Vestrial: the wording of the feat contains zero information about what type of action this takes. Since it's not been assigned as a standard, swift, or free action, by the actual wording of the text, you should be able to choose to do it before you take your AoO, and it'll last until "your next turn" -- which in this case, could very possibly be quite soon.If Paizo decides to assign an action type to Power Attack, they can do that -- but I'm realizing this game is really predicated on what words actually appear in the text, and many of the problems occur when something important isn't there.
It seems like they've had plenty of time to have errata'd Power Attack, if they were ever going to do so. My guess is it hasn't been altered because there is no intention of doing so ... which means it isn't limited to something you can do only on your turn, since the feat never says this.
If they did decide to define it as a free action, that would open its own can of worms, since there are people who are convinced that free actions are only able to be taken on your own turn, thus defeating the very object of the rule, at their table.
If they defined it as an immediate action, to explicitly explain it was able to be done outside of your turn, that would also set a 1/round cap on them, which would defeat the purpose of Combat Reflexes.
I'm happy for it to remain a non-action, that once decided, affects all attacks until your initiative resets.
Does this mean that, technically, you could attack normally during your turn, and switch on the PA during an AoO?
Maybe, but is that actually a problem?
Moreover, I can't see it happening often enough to be a recurring tactic, since most savvy players will have already decided if their opponent's AC merits the use of PA, and activated it while they were bashing them during their turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with that being true, the common English use of the word 'normal' still supports 'unmodified' as being a reasonable definition for it.
It seems like this is ultimately the crux of the issue. "Normal", in the plain language sense, does NOT mean "unmodified". That's simply not what normal means. Normal means typical, usual, or in the most frequent sense. To quote dictionary.com, it means "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural." Just because an "unmodified" attack roll is the most basic does not make it "normal". In Pathfinder, the "standard or the common type" to which the AoO must conform includes the application of bonuses and penalties.
By exempting an AoO from bonuses or penalties that would otherwise apply, you have in fact caused the attack bonus to be a special case - anything but "normal".
I understand your point, which is why I'm not beating you with my +3 Pretensious Willowstick... but the matter has broken down into semantics. We can both be considered right. If you say I'm wrong, then tell me why.
Because by that reading, anything after your first attack roll ever is after an attack, and thus illegal.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I understand your point, which is why I'm not beating you with my +3 Pretensious Willowstick... but the matter has broken down into semantics. We can both be considered right. If you say I'm wrong, then tell me why.Because by that reading, anything after your first attack roll ever is after an attack, and thus illegal.
Agreed. Regardless of how PA actually works, that rationale is thoroughly flawed. Typical English usually refers to an event between two same-name reference points by describing its relationship to the nearest one. "After lunch," "before bed," "before an attack roll." It always refers to the nearest one.
|
|
In Pathfinder, the "standard or the common type" to which the AoO must conform includes the application of bonuses and penalties.
By exempting an AoO from bonuses or penalties that would otherwise apply, you have in fact caused the attack bonus to be a special case - anything but "normal".
But again, using this interpretation, which do you include and which do you not? Because that's not defined anywhere.
But the restriction generated by the feat (no calling Power Attack after an attack roll) is an effect of the feat.
Its there so you can't say "Hey, i rolled a 17, Oh.. ermm.. i did mean to power attack there..."
An effect, like the modifiers to attack and damage rolls, which lasts until the next turn. Effectively resetting the conditions of the feat.
Its one way to look at it, but again, since the text does not specify WHICH attack it has to come before in a round it could technically come before any of them. As long as someone isn't turning it on after seeing what they rolled they're not breaking the raw.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again, using this interpretation, which do you include and which do you not? Because that's not defined anywhere.
Sure it is: it's defined in every bonus and penalty's individual description. Inspire Courage gives a bonus to attack rolls of any sort, so it applies. Iterative attacks give a penalty only to certain attacks made in a full attack action, so that penalty doesn't apply to the AoO.
You know what's also not defined in the definition of an AoO? How the AoO interacts with DR, concealment/miss chances, combat maneuvers, etc. But they still apply.
Not every rule lists its own interactions with every other rule. If everything that involved letting you make an attack had to specify what attack bonuses applied to it, the CRB would be absurdly thick. Thus, you can't take the absence of a list of applicable bonuses to mean that no bonuses (or penalties) apply.
There are two ends to every interaction between two rules. Just because rule X doesn't explicitly list its interaction with rule Y doesn't mean they don't interact. You can look at rule Y to make the determination.
So again, if a bonus/penalty applies to "attack rolls", then it applies to AoOs. If it applies to a certain subset of attack rolls of which AoOs are a member, it applies to AoOs. If it applies to a certain subset of attack rolls of which AoOs are NOT a member, it DOESN'T apply to AoOs.
The definition of AoOs doesn't list that they can be replaced with Disarms and Trips, but the rules for those maneuvers show that they can. The definition of AoOs doesn't list bonus types that apply to them, but the rules for those bonuses show whether they do or not.
But you have made a decision to use the feat, or to not use the feat. If you use the feat, you're stuck with it's effects. If you don't, you're bound by the the fact that you didn't choose to activate Power Attack before you made an attack roll. In either case, the effect ends at the start of your next turn.Not saying you're wrong, just that I'm not necessarily wrong either.
I will preface this with saying I havent caught up with the thread yet - it has exploded!
Regarding your final conclusion about being wrong. Actually your conclusion is necessarily incorrect. As I said before, if your conclusion was going to hold up then my faceitious conclusion would also hold up.
There is no language to support your limit on when you can and cannot use power attack written in the feat. So, therefore the limit you have decided upon is arbitrary. You are associating your attack rolls on a per-round reset of Power Attack's availablity, but that's not in the feat it is something you have extrapolated (from 3.5 or otherwise). Someone could read it much more strictly than you are and rule that after you make an attack roll in a combat then you can't use power attack again. Which is also a viable reading in your opinion.
Because neither of these interpretation make much sense and the acceptance of your interpretation automatically includes the second, I must say that you're incorrect in your assumptions about when power attack is available.
|
|
stuffYou do make excellent points, you really do, but I'm still more persuaded by the content of the AoO's write up.What happens to your +1 magic sword on an AoO?
Does it not "turn on" even though it is effectively "use activated" and attacking with it is "using it"?
As I already said, that's definitely a gap.
I understand how some (most) of you aren't swayed by the argument, but I do absolutely feel that if bonuses were meant to be applied they could have easily spelled that out in the text. They said what I understand to be the opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point is, many interpretations can be made RAW, which is why it's impossible to say what's right until it's errata'd.
I prefer to think that the rules should invite a singular interpretation no matter who is reading it. If someone is reading a rule and they are coming to a different conclusion than someone else then the chances are:
1. The rule needs to be clarified
2. There is a disconnect between what is written and what is being interpreted.
Regarding the AoO side-discussion:
The attack is made at your full bonus, but many things can affect the roll: Bless, Fighting Defensively, Power Attack, Combat Expertise. AoOs can be made while under these effects.
If you are reading that AoOs can only be made when they are unmodified attack rolls, then you'll probably never make an AoO in your game.
This would have no bearing on if you could switch on Power Attack or not.
Wow, after reading all the posts I find this discussion topic incredible.
It's a game based upon a framework of rules that are open to lots of interpretations RAI or RAW, however here's my interpretation, any Bonuses or Penalties apply to the Attack Roll regardless of when it occurs "AoO" or "on your turn" just roll the die, apply the mods, move on, the next player wants their turn. Easier, quick and simple no errata needed.
History has many examples of disagreements over semantics in texts older than D20 rule systems. And I'm fairly certain that the disagreements will continue into the future.
Time is short at a "Game table", just play and have fun!
I ready an action to power attack the next enemy to initiate a power attack! ;)
stuffYou do make excellent points, you really do, but I'm still more persuaded by the content of the AoO's write up.What happens to your +1 magic sword on an AoO?
Does it not "turn on" even though it is effectively "use activated" and attacking with it is "using it"?
As I already said, that's definitely a gap.
I understand how some (most) of you aren't swayed by the argument, but I do absolutely feel that if bonuses were meant to be applied they could have easily spelled that out in the text. They said what I understand to be the opposite.
I've only been skimming this thread. Have you posted a rules quote for what a "normal attack bonus" is, as opposed to a normal "attack bonus"? The latter would include anything that normally modifies an attack.
Side thought: I could make a case that if you have a penalty to attack rolls (say, you have a 7 strength, BAB +0, and you're not proficient with the weapon), you'd still just add +0 to AoOs because it says to use the bonus, not the modifier....
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.
Thank you Sean.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.
Thank you. I envy you not your job in this forums.
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.
hi5 Sean! Thanks for your input.
Now if we can get to talking about rethinking the restriction Combat Expertise hehehe :)
Combat expertise is different. You need more damage on your attacks, taking off your to hit there is fair. You need armor class on everyone ELSES turn... so giving up your last attack for more armor is a much better deal.
Mind you, that MIGHT be enough to make people WANT combat expertise for its own sake...
Combat expertise is different. You need more damage on your attacks, taking off your to hit there is fair. You need armor class on everyone ELSES turn... so giving up your last attack for more armor is a much better deal.
I agree, but I don't think that giving up your last attack for an AC bump is fair at all. It amounts to an attack that we all thought would miss anyway ends up giving me AC. To clarify, Combat Expertise should always be declared at the start of a full attack.
What I would like to see is:
1. Combat Expertise expanded to work with things like Charge, Cleave, Spring Attack
*As written it currently can't be used with these.
2. Combat Expertise expanded to work with an AoO
*This is made at your Highest attack bonus, if you willfully take negatives to your AoO you are both expending a valuable resource as well as passing the opportunity to strike a character that provokes for an AC bonus.
I do believe this will make people actually want to use Combat Expertise, but this is all another thread I have :)
Look 6 posts up?
i saw that and deleted my original post...forgive my ignorance I am still a padawan
I wonder how often this situation comes up. I played a fighter in a Kingmaker AP, and am playing a fighter in a Legacy of Fire AP. I've never encountered a situation where I would want to attack without activating Power Attack and then want to do an AoO with Power Attack.
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.
This is because the feat was drastically re-written from the original version.
From the SRD:
"POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn."
This doesn't look like a purposeful change, as the language is unclear and doesn't fit the normal pattern regarding actions.
|
There's really no need to necromancy this thread. It's universally agreed that Power Attack can apply to AoOs, except by the occasional confused troll. The 'on your action' in the text is obviously an error: the developers simply weren't thinking about all the times you attack when it's not your turn.
That said, in order to avoid any possible confusion I always write on my character sheets, by Power Attack, "By default, Power Attack is ALWAYS ON unless I explicitly say it is not." After all, the situations where you don't want to Power Attack are quite rare. In fact, I've never had a PC with Power Attack not use it. Not once.
Please, let's let this thread die in peace :-)
There's really no need to necromancy this thread. It's universally agreed that Power Attack can apply to AoOs, except by the occasional confused troll. The 'on your action' in the text is obviously an error: the developers simply weren't thinking about all the times you attack when it's not your turn.
That said, in order to avoid any possible confusion I always write on my character sheets, by Power Attack, "By default, Power Attack is ALWAYS ON unless I explicitly say it is not." After all, the situations where you don't want to Power Attack are quite rare. In fact, I've never had a PC with Power Attack not use it. Not once.
Please, let's let this thread die in peace :-)
Wow...I guess you're right. It's too late to save the ignorant from themselves.