Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
By pure reading of the above quoted RAW text, picking up a weapon that is lying in a threatened square is an action that occurs in that threatened square. So you can opportunity attack the weapon picker-upper.
Or are you going to argue that picking up a weapon in a threatened square is an action that occurs outside of the square the weapon is in?
Besides, if we rule that reaching inside a threatened square and manipulating objects inside of it doesn't provokeI don't see how that's even an option to be discussed, as the rules explicitly state that picking up an item provokes.
If you have 5' reach, then you can reach into adjacent squares. That's what 5' reach means. A reach of 0' feet means you can't reach into adjacent squares.
If someone provokes, but you can't reach the square they occupy, you can't hit them.
You do not occupy every square you can reach. If you have to move into a square in order to reach what's inside it, you would have to make acrobatics checks to enter the square of the creature you're fighting.
The only way to hit someone who is reaching into a square is with the Strike Back feat. The existence of that feat means that without that feat, you can't attack someone's limb that reaches into your square, much less into an adjacent threatened square.
Do any of the people arguing that you have to enter a square to reach it, or that you can attack someone outside your reach, have any rules they can quote to support them?
Grick has expressed my thoughts on the matter (others have as well). You provoke, but you are not in the square, your arm is. Unless you have Strike Back or a Reach weapon that encompasses the perpetrator's square, no AoO.
Or are you going to argue that picking up a weapon in a threatened square is an action that occurs outside of the square the weapon is in?
Yes, and I already did in the previous post. The creature performing the action is not in that threatened square, and attacks of opportunity are made against creatures, not against actions. A creature with reach can stick its hand/mouth/claw/tentacle over to you and grab you, and you can't make an AoO against it.
|
By pure reading of the above quoted RAW text, picking up a weapon that is lying in a threatened square is an action that occurs in that threatened square. So you can opportunity attack the weapon picker-upper.
On top of BNW's point, you're asserting that a character can AoO an enemy outside of his reach.
Not only that but your also now gonna to run into the effect of since I'm reaching into another square i can provoke AoO from enemies on the other side of the guy I'm Tripping/Disarming/Stealing/Dirty tricking/grappling.
No, I'm arguing that when you reach into a threatened square to pick up something, a part of your body has entered the threatened square and can be attacked.
I can read RAW as well as you guys can. My reading of RAW is just as valid as yours is. I think it's more valid. It's an action that occurs in a threatened square so you provoke. While most of your body is outside of the reach of the attacker, your arm is not.
This is obviously a corner condition and it would be nice for a developer to rule on it.
Not only that but your also now gonna to run into the effect of since I'm reaching into another square i can provoke AoO from enemies on the other side of the guy I'm Tripping/Disarming/Stealing/Dirty tricking/grappling.
No, this is not RAW. You are only provoking creatures that threaten the square with the weapon you are picking up. That's what RAW says.
Or are you going to argue that picking up a weapon in a threatened square is an action that occurs outside of the square the weapon is in?Yes, and I already did in the previous post. The creature performing the action is not in that threatened square, and attacks of opportunity are made against creatures, not against actions. A creature with reach can stick its hand/mouth/claw/tentacle over to you and grab you, and you can't make an AoO against it.
I posted the RAW text. Attacks of opportunity are NOT restricted to creatures. The rule clearly says there are TWO things that provoke. One is moving out of a threatened square, the other is performing a defined provoking action WITHIN a threatened square.
You can argue all you like that picking up a weapon in square A is an action that is performed in Square B, but that is so logically indefensible as to be laughable.
I posted the RAW text. Attacks of opportunity are NOT restricted to creatures.Or are you going to argue that picking up a weapon in a threatened square is an action that occurs outside of the square the weapon is in?Yes, and I already did in the previous post. The creature performing the action is not in that threatened square, and attacks of opportunity are made against creatures, not against actions. A creature with reach can stick its hand/mouth/claw/tentacle over to you and grab you, and you can't make an AoO against it.
None of your posted raw suggests that this is the case.
The rule clearly says there are TWO things that provoke. One is moving out of a threatened square, the other is performing a defined provoking action WITHIN a threatened square.
No, it clearly says that when BOTH occur you provoke. Otherwise you would draw an attack of opportunity from the guy across the room when you cast a spell. You do not because you're not doing anything while standing in a square he threatens.
You can argue all you like that picking up a weapon in square A is an action that is performed in Square B, but that is so logically indefensible as to be laughable.
Its how the rules work: creatures are in their squares, not the squares they act on. Its why you need a feat to ready an action to attack something that sticks its claw into your space. If the dragon's claw grabbing your head was an independant thing that could be attacked you wouldn't need the strike back feat to attack their claws as they came at you.
|
It's funny, when I first read this thread, I thought both Bob and Steve were adjacent to the Orc, and I was like "hell yeah, that Orc is gonna tear Steve up!" but then I realized that the scenario being discussed was that Steve was being a litte B!#*% and was using Bob as a meat shield, then I was like "hell no, that Orc can't reach Steve, unless he has a spear, and if that Orc did have a spear, then that Orc would be like 'oh no he di-ent' and tear ol Steve up!"
Soooooooooooooo yeah.
The Orc, a medium creature, occupies one square and can reach into/threaten every square around it. Steve, also a medium creature can do the same. Because Steve doesn't have stubby tyrannosaurus arms, he doesn't need to be in a square to affect it, he may be adjacent to it. If Steve and the Orc have an inter posing square between them (as they apparently do for this thread) neither threatens the other and cannot use an attack of opportunity against each other.
Adamantine Dragon, I believe you are incorrect in supposing that the Orc can use an AoO against Steve for reaching into that inter posing square. You quoted the rule Performing a Distracting Act but you have appeared to overlook the preceding section Threatened Squares that states: "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you". It doesn't say "while reaching into a threatened square". It states that the square the enemy occupies is in a threatened square. So, no, the Orc cannot use an attack of opportunity against Steve.
For those of you saying that the Orc could hit Steve using the Stike Back feat, stop it. You're wrong. Steve would have to be attacking the Orc with a reach weapon. Steve doesn't have a reach weapon, nor is he trying to attack the Orc. Ergo, Stike Back would not apply. The only way the Orc could hit Steve without moving is if it was using a reach weapon.
Ok, I'm going to flip this example on its head: Bob falls to the ground after the Orc was done giving him the business, Steve reaches over to him to perform First Aid to stabilize him. The Orc wouldn't be able to attack Steve because he doesn't threaten Steve. Who cares if Steve is has his arm in Bob's square, Steve doesn't occupy Bob's square.
No, I'm arguing that when you reach into a threatened square to pick up something, a part of your body has entered the threatened square and can be attacked.
I can read RAW as well as you guys can. My reading of RAW is just as valid as yours is. I think it's more valid. It's an action that occurs in a threatened square so you provoke. While most of your body is outside of the reach of the attacker, your arm is not.
This is obviously a corner condition and it would be nice for a developer to rule on it.
If this is the RAW, then why does Strike Back exist? It handles the exact situation you describe, but you need a feat to do it.
Strike Back (Combat)
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
So clearly it is not RAW, nor a corner case, nor does it require a developer comment. Targeting limbs is not possible without Strike Back.
I'll just leave this here (again.)
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?
******
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.*** consider the following 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).
Oh and:
What is the point of the Strike Back feat? Couldn't you already prepare an action to strike a creature's limbs as it attacked you (even though it might have reach)? This feat seems to allow you to do something you already could do (or should be able to do).
While you can ready an action to attack a foe that attacks you, you still need to have reach to that foe to attack them. You can't prepare an action to strike an attacking creature's limbs because that more or less negates the whole point of a creature having reach in the first place. This feat lets you do just that, but it has a hefty prerequisite.
[Source]
This is the least productive thread I have seen. Everyone is arguing whether reaching into an adjacent square to pick up an item provokes an attack of opportunity from a foe who threatens the square the item is in, and not you. That is a silly discussion, because of course he does not, it is established that you can only take an aoo against a creature that you threaten directly.
The real question, which I do agree could use some clearing up, is whether, in combat, it is legal to retrieve an item from a square you do not occupy. There does not seem to be anything in the text of the rules which says one way or the other, and this is the question that could use a ruling from the developers, not the question of making aoo's against limbs reaching into threatened squares.
This is an obvious example of an issue where both sides have fallen into the trap of arguing simply to be right, and losing sight of the real issue.
|
|
EDIT: Darn it, I hit the wrong button.
@jreyst: while I generally agree that 3.5 has set a precedent of rules interpretation, there have been a number of times where the PF devs have disagreed with the 3.5 FAQs. Though, I don't think that will be the case here.
@Mabven: the OP asked if Steve would receive an AoO for reaching into Bob's square to pick up a weapon. So, no, we are not losing sight "of the real issue". While you do ask a valid question that directly relates to the question in this thread, you would serve a better purpose by starting a new thread rather than complaining that we are missing the point when discussing the subject of the original post.
I am always amazed how condescendingly dismissive people are of other people's opinions.
Mabven, when clearly thoughtful and intelligent people disagree on the interpretation of a rule, declaring the debate "silly" and asserting your interpretation is the only one is the least helpful input possible.
As I said, this is a case where the RAW has multiple interpretations and we need a ruling from the developers to settle this. The RAW for opportunity attacks says you can make attacks for specific actions that occur in a square. Picking up a weapon is one of those specific actions. That section of the rules does not state that you have to be IN the square, only that the action occur in the square.
The rules outlining threats and reach are a separate part of the rules. Those of you insisting they apply are making just as much of an assumption as those of us who say thay don't.
It is not clear. The rules do not definitively define what happens in this situation, which is why the OP asked the question.
The only people being unreasonable here are those who condescendingly insist that their interpretation is "clearly" the only interpretation.
The RAW can be interpreted either way, and we need the design team to tell us which way is their intention. I can see an argument for either interpretation.
It is absolutely RAW that you must threaten a creature's square in order to make an aoo. There is plenty of precedent with creatures who have reach to rule authoritatively on the issue.
There is, however, an issue that is not clear in RAW that deserves developer input, and that is whether one can actually pick up an item in an adjacent square. This issue is getting ignored so people can argue all sorts of house-rule-y nonsense about taking aoo's against limbs. If you want to rule in your game that you can take aoo's against limbs, go ahead, but this is clearly not RAW. And it is not constructive in settling an issue that clearly needs some developer input. Unfortunately, the devs are not going to recognise that this is the question at hand, because all they are going to see is 3 pages of people discussing something which I am sure they don't feel they need to comment on, because it is very clearly RAW.
Both are RAW Mabven. You are choosing what portion of RAW to enforce. Again, it does no good for you to declare that there is no debate when there is clearly debate.
Yes, it would help to clarify things if the developers rule that you CANNOT pick up things in adjacent squares. That would essentially enforce YOUR reading of RAW. I doubt that is what they will declare though, which will then leave THIS question of whether the action occuring in a square still provokes, and they will then have to answer that.
If there is one thing that really gets my emotions riled up on these boards it is when people dismissively, condescendingly, arrogantly assert that they are the only people who can read RAW.
And Hangar, there are now, and have always been, conflicting rules in RAW. Right now, TODAY, you can find TWO rules on crafting magic items, one which says the DC is FIVE + CL and one which says it is TEN plus CL.
Both are RAW. James Jacobs weighed in with a ruling to say which is RAI, but BOTH ARE RAW today.
I would say no, you cannot pick up items in adjacent squares, due to both the character and the item not taking up their entire respective squares.
TOZ, that would settle this question, but then you would have people asking "wait, if I can't touch an item in an adjacent square, how the hell am I hitting you with a dagger?"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I said pick up, not touch. Attacking a moving target is different from reaching a stationary one.
Since you came to the party late, I'll reiterate this bit for you:
The rules already explicitly allow you to pick up an item from an adjacent square - if it's attended. See the Steal combat maneuver and the part of the Disarm rules involving not using a weapon.
So to rule that you need to enter an unattended object's square to pick it up, you need a justification as to why you need to be closer to an unattended object than to one that someone's actively trying to keep away from you.
Such a justification has yet to be presented, AFAIK.
I said pick up, not touch. Attacking a moving target is different from reaching a stationary one.
And how is that TOZ? You are asserting that it is more logical that I can reach out and hit a moving, dodging target in an adjacent square than that I can reach out and touch a stationary item. That is what you are saying.
And in general if I can touch something, and it is small enough, then I can pick it up. If you are going to start bringing things like, "you might be able to just barely get your fingertip on something but not reach the additional three inches it would take to wrap your fingers around it" then I won't even bother responding to that sort of pedantic absurdism. Touching is a prerequisite for picking up. There are NO RULES IN RAW that break down the position of items within the 5 foot square. It is a binary situation, it is either in the square or not. If it is in the square then it is in the square. There is no "well, it is in the square, but it is on the far side of the square and out of your reach" in the RAW. Sure the GM can rule that way if they like, but that is not RAW.
@AD: I am sorry that your emotions are getting riled up, I have no intention of causing you emotional distress. However, there is plenty of precedent on reaching into threatened squares to do things other than picking up items, which do not provoke aoo's, which would provoke aoo's if the enemy were threatening the square you are in. Such examples are: casting a spell on an ally who is in a threatened square; initiating a grapple, tripping, sundering, disarming an opponent who you have greater reach than; making an unarmed attack against an enemy who you have greater reach than, when you do not have Improved Unarmed Strike; stabilising a dying ally who is in a threatened square when you are not; delivering a coup de grace on an enemy who is in a threatened square when you are not.
If you are saying that it is RAW that picking up an item in an adjacent square which is threatened, when your square is not, provokes an aoo, then it must also be RAW that all of the above examples also provoke aoo's.
The only real question here is whether it is RAW that you can pick up items from an adjacent square in the first place.
@AD: I am sorry that your emotions are getting riled up, I have no intention of causing you emotional distress. However, there is plenty of precedent on reaching into threatened squares to do things other than picking up items, which do not provoke aoo's, which would provoke aoo's if the enemy were threatening the square you are in. Such examples are: casting a spell on an ally who is in a threatened square; initiating a grapple, tripping, sundering, disarming an opponent who you have greater reach than; making an unarmed attack against an enemy who you have greater reach than, when you do not have Improved Unarmed Strike; stabilising a dying ally who is in a threatened square when you are not; delivering a coup de grace on an enemy who is in a threatened square when you are not.
If you are saying that it is RAW that picking up an item in an adjacent square which is threatened, when your square is not, provokes an aoo, then it must also be RAW that all of the above examples also provoke aoo's.
The only real question here is whether it is RAW that you can pick up items from an adjacent square in the first place.
Again Mabven, you can assert what you like, and you can cite all the rules that you believe support your assertion. It remains just that. Your assertion. Nothing more, nothing less. Your reading is a completely reasonable and well supported reading.
So is the other side.
Both are supportable from RAW. Your continued assertion that the "only issue" is whether or not you can pick up an item in an adjacent square is no more than your personal opinion, and an opinion that I believe has been well rebutted several times with equal levels of rule citations,
Why is it so friggin impossible to get rational, reasonable, intelligent beings to say "hmmm yeah, I see your point too?"
Well, I flagged this. I will wait to see if the devs weigh in. There is no point rehashing the same assertions over and over, trying to point out that there are solid points on both sides...
Name one other instance where, you are standing in a square that is not threatened, you reach into a threatened square to do anything other than pick up an item, and provoke and aoo, and I will say "hmmm yeah, I see your point too." I have named 7 cases where this is not the case. Support your arguments with facts, and I will concede an ambiguity in the rules.
|
|
So to rule that you need to enter an unattended object's square to pick it up, you need a justification as to why you need to be closer to an unattended object than to one that someone's actively trying to keep away from you.
Such a justification has yet to be presented, AFAIK.
Some justification has been presented I believe, e.g. the fact that unless you are trying to steal someone's shoe an item held or worn by an opponent is likely closer to your reach than an item on the floor.
Also the idea that you could actually use your foe to bring the item to you e.g. for Disarm, maybe part of the disarm attempt is to fake a strike that the person tries to parry - which actually gets your foe to bring their weapon into your grasp!
It was also mentioned that allowing the Manipulate an Item Move Action (the action that includes picking up an item) to be used on items that could potentially be on the opposite edge of the adjacent square may set an unfortunate precedent for other actions (e.g. opening a door that is 5 feet away and thus avoiding the 5' by 5' pit trap immediately in front of the door)
Me personally, as stated in the post that started the debate over whether you can by RAW pick up an item in an adjacent square, feel that it is not clear cut by RAW (see the definition of Manipulate an Item below) and would adjudicate it on a case by case basis taking into account the size of the item and exactly where it is in the adjacent 5' by 5' square.
Manipulate an Item
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table 8–2.
By the rules picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, by the rules you cannot provoke an attack of opportunity if you are not occupying a threatened square. So, next time your character is disarmed, do not simply pick up your weapon, be sure instead to take five-foot step back out of harm’s way and only then reach into the threatened square to retrieve your weapon.
You can avoid an attack of opportunity this way. ;)
Except then, unless said weapon was a reach weapon (in which case 5 ft steppng back was going to be in your plans anyway), you've just given up the ability to use your standard action to attack the foe, due to him also being out of your reach. Since you can do things like Vital Strike on an attack action to yield more damage than your foe likely can do to increase his damage on an AoO, you would actually be better served to take the AoO like a (wom)man, and whack the foe back afterwards.
Name one other instance where, you are standing in a square that is not threatened, you reach into a threatened square to do anything other than pick up an item, and provoke and aoo, and I will say "hmmm yeah, I see your point too." I have named 7 cases where this is not the case. Support your arguments with facts, and I will concede an ambiguity in the rules.
No Mabven, I'm pretty sure you won't concede anything.
The only support needed is the specific RAW I already posted that says there are TWO things that provoke, and one of them is an action in a threatened square.
See, I could play like you play Mabven, and puff all up and wrap myself in "rules citations" and declare my point proved "unless YOU can PROVE that picking up an item occurs in A DIFFERENT SQUARE than the item picked up!!!"
But there is no point to it. I have pointed out that the rules are inconsistent. The original poster must have realized the inconsistency existed or this thread would never have happened. Now it's been flagged. The developers will either intervene and rule on this or not.
Your opinion and my opinion will remain just that. Our opinions. Nothing more, nothing less, until they do.
Have a good day Mabven.
|
|
I said pick up, not touch. Attacking a moving target is different from reaching a stationary one.Since you came to the party late, I'll reiterate this bit for you:
The rules already explicitly allow you to pick up an item from an adjacent square - if it's attended. See the Steal combat maneuver and the part of the Disarm rules involving not using a weapon.
So to rule that you need to enter an unattended object's square to pick it up, you need a justification as to why you need to be closer to an unattended object than to one that someone's actively trying to keep away from you.
Such a justification has yet to be presented, AFAIK.
That's no different than making an attack roll. Because the character is moving about in combat, as is the target, an attack/Steal can be attempted.
You cannot do the same for an unattended object because it is stationary.
There is only RAI. You must interpret the writing.Touché. Perhaps it's better to say that there are official interpretations and unofficial interpretations.
@AD: I will be honest, I'm not very familiar with crafting. Would you mind PMing me the links you are referring to? Thanks!
There are multiple threads already on the boards which reference this. I'm not going to go link it for you.
UPDATE: Oh, and I concur with TOZ on the "there is only 'RAI'." But only if the "I" in "RAI" is "interpreted", not "intended."
There is only "Rules As Interpreted." As this thread clearly shows, different people interpret the same rules-as-written different ways. No matter what the developers may have "intended."
Name one other instance where, you are standing in a square that is not threatened, you reach into a threatened square to do anything other than pick up an item, and provoke and aoo, and I will say "hmmm yeah, I see your point too." I have named 7 cases where this is not the case. Support your arguments with facts, and I will concede an ambiguity in the rules.No Mabven, I'm pretty sure you won't concede anything.
You obviously have not followed my postings very closely. There are many instances where I have conceded that my reading of the rules were incorrect, when faced with a well-reasoned argument. Unfortunately, in more than one of those cases, the developers have stepped in and stated that my original reading of the rules was correct, but that does not decrease my respect for the person who changed my mind with well constructed rhetoric. A well thought out logical argument will always win my respect, even if I have just been fooled by a maze of tautology, but you will never get me to change my mind by simply complaining that I am not giving your side of the argument a fair shake.
|
|
| 32 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I post these questions, not for discussion, but for the FAQ.
#1 - while in combat, can you pick up (or otherwise handle or manipulate) an unattended object that is not located in your square, but otherwise located within your reach (ie an adjacent square for small or medium creatures)?
#2 - assuming that #1 is "yes", when performing an action that normally provokes an Attack of Opportunity, do you provoke the attack if the square you occupy is not in a threatened area, but the square you are reaching into is?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I post these questions, not for discussion, but for the FAQ.
#1 - while in combat, can you pick up (or otherwise handle or manipulate) an unattended object that is not located in your square, but otherwise located within your reach (ie an adjacent square for small or medium creatures)?
#2 - assuming that #1 is "yes", when performing an action that normally provokes an Attack of Opportunity, do you provoke the attack if the square you occupy is not in a threatened area, but the square you are reaching into is?
Good man, HangarFlying! Clicked.
I encourage everyone else to flag it for FAQing as well.
|
|
There are multiple threads already on the boards which reference this. I'm not going to go link it for you.
UPDATE: Oh, and I concur with TOZ on the "there is only 'RAI'." But only if the "I" in "RAI" is "interpreted", not "intended."
There is only "Rules As Interpreted." As this thread clearly shows, different people interpret the same rules-as-written different ways. No matter what the developers may have "intended."
Woah Grumpy Bear, Simmah Donnah! I didn't ask for threads on the topic, I'm asking you to provide links to the rules in question, perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that. I shan't bother your lordship anymore on the subject.
Except then, unless said weapon was a reach weapon (in which case 5 ft steppng back was going to be in your plans anyway), you've just given up the ability to use your standard action to attack the foe, due to him also being out of your reach. Since you can do things like Vital Strike on an attack action to yield more damage than your foe likely can do to increase his damage on an AoO, you would actually be better served to take the AoO like a (wom)man, and whack the foe back afterwards.By the rules picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, by the rules you cannot provoke an attack of opportunity if you are not occupying a threatened square. So, next time your character is disarmed, do not simply pick up your weapon, be sure instead to take five-foot step back out of harm’s way and only then reach into the threatened square to retrieve your weapon.
You can avoid an attack of opportunity this way. ;)
True, but it's still a strange case. It seems to take advantage of the absence of simultaneous action by both Steve and the orc.
Another strange case is that Steve could trickle a healing potion down Bob’s throat while the orc just snarls, helpless to do anything about it because it’s not his turn.
|
|
Another strange case is that Steve could trickle a healing potion down Bob’s throat while the orc just snarls, helpless to do anything about it because it’s not his turn.
Although one might argue that the Orc could AoO Bob for drinking the potion.
I did raise a similar scenario earlier about using the heal skill. I'm curious as to whether or not you have to be standing in the square of the creature you plan on administering first-aid to. Obviously this question relates directly to the FAQ questions I posted above; though intuitively, I think of someone standing directly over a prone person when performing such an activity, which indicates that they would be in the same square. Ah well, click the questions a bunch and hopefully we'll get an answer soon!
Woah Grumpy Bear, Simmah Donnah! I didn't ask for threads on the topic, I'm asking you to provide links to the rules in question, perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that. I shan't bother your lordship anymore on the subject.There are multiple threads already on the boards which reference this. I'm not going to go link it for you.
UPDATE: Oh, and I concur with TOZ on the "there is only 'RAI'." But only if the "I" in "RAI" is "interpreted", not "intended."
There is only "Rules As Interpreted." As this thread clearly shows, different people interpret the same rules-as-written different ways. No matter what the developers may have "intended."
Hangars, I am not in need of "simmahing donnah". I simply am not going to waste time looking up a single instance of a RAW conflict for you when my point was that RAW conflicts exist and I was just using a recently publicized example to prove my point.
If you want to argue that there are no RAW conflicts in the current rules as written, then fine, I'm not even going to distinguish that with a response. RAW conflicts exist. That's why a huge portion of the FAQ even exists. This is just one example.
That was my point.
By the rules, Steve could step into and occupy the square of his helpless buddy then administer the healing potion from there. This creates a separate problem that I won't mention here but does allow for the interpretation that a character must occupy a square to do things like pick up an item or administer a potion to a dying comrade.
As for standing on desks to pick up items on them; I would say you can occupy the same square as a desk without standing on it unless the desk were excessively large. However, the rules don't say this. By the rules, under "Terrain and Ostacles" a character can move through the same square as an obstacle, but the rules seem to imply that character can't stay in the square of the obstacle.
But what is an obstacle? A desk, a tree, a chest, a sword? The rules do say you can occupy the same space as a tree, see the rules under "Forest terrain".
I would rule that you can occupy the same space as a desk, but to cross that space you need to have enough movement to do so. I would also rule that you need to be in the same space as an object to pick it up. I would like to rule that you need to be in the space of a helpless comrade in order to administer a potion, but that would break with the way I've handled it in the past before this thread existed.
|
|
I said pick up, not touch. Attacking a moving target is different from reaching a stationary one.And how is that TOZ? You are asserting that it is more logical that I can reach out and hit a moving, dodging target in an adjacent square than that I can reach out and touch a stationary item. That is what you are saying.
No. As I told Jiggy, what I am saying is that the stationary object is out of reach, making it impossible to grab it, and the moving object is brought into reach by its movement, making it possible to reach. The Steal check represents the difficulty of that act, not the possibility of that act.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As I told Jiggy, what I am saying is that the stationary object is out of reach, making it impossible to grab it, and the moving object is brought into reach by its movement, making it possible to reach.
This I don't understand. The guy whose crap you want to steal is bringing it into your reach?
As I told Jiggy, what I am saying is that the stationary object is out of reach, making it impossible to grab it, and the moving object is brought into reach by its movement, making it possible to reach.This I don't understand. The guy whose crap you want to steal is bringing it into your reach?
TOZ is simply inventing a rationalization to support his assertion. I have already tried to point out how illogical his rationalization is. There is nothing whatsoever in the RAW about this, it is a pure invention of TOZ to try to support his argument.