|
I'll go back through it tonight to see if this rule changed anyone's mindIt didn't. Came close with TriOmegaZero, though.
No no, it did. Just not to match your position. I still maintain that there will be times the item is on the opposite border and cannot be picked up. The rules do not cover this, of course, and the DM must determine how he will handle this and how often.
No no, it did. Just not to match your position. I still maintain that there will be times the item is on the opposite border and cannot be picked up. The rules do not cover this, of course, and the DM must determine how he will handle this and how often.
How would you rule with my Ogre example?
Yes, this is the rules forum. And in my mind this issues boils down to two things the developers need to address.
1. Where does the "pick up item" action happen? Since it provokes an AoO this is a very important question. Here are the most likely choices:
a) In the square of the item.
b) In the square(s) of the picking up creature.
c) a + b
2. Can a creature pick an item up in any square they can reach?
My preferred ruling on this is:
1 - c
2 - yes
I have no desire to tie this into CMB attacks, touch attack provocations or anything else.
This is very simple. It just needs a ruling. We will not settle this between ourselves. It requires Paizo to make a call.
Yes, this is the rules forum. And in my mind this issues boils down to two things the developers need to address.
1. Where does the "pick up item" action happen? Since it provokes an AoO this is a very important question. Here are the most likely choices:
a) In the square of the item.
b) In the square(s) of the picking up creature.
c) a + b2. Can a creature pick an item up in any square they can reach?
My preferred ruling on this is:
1 - c
2 - yesI have no desire to tie this into CMB attacks, touch attack provocations or anything else.
This is very simple. It just needs a ruling. We will not settle this between ourselves. It requires Paizo to make a call.
Don't look at me, I clicked the FAQ...
IMO, a dropped object, being inanimate, has no reach, so yeah, you have to move into the square of the object; YMMV.
Adamatine, you are arguing something that I have already agreed with. Yes, it provokes an AoO on the creature taking the action.
My point, as simply as I can make it is this.
1) To take an AoO you must threaten a space the creature occupies.
2) Using a move action to pick up an item does not change the space a creature occupies.
Therefore, you must threaten the space the creature is standing in, when it uses a pick up an item action.
Nothing you have said refutes this. 1 is spelled out in RAW. 2 is RAW in that the pick up action does not state you move, therefore you don't.
Please let me know why you believe Bob can AoO the Ogre even though the Ogre is out of his reach.
a dropped object, being inanimate, has no reach,What in the world does the target's reach have to do with anything?
Attended object as re: the steal combat maneuver, you see what I mean?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Attended object as re: the steal combat maneuver, you see what I mean?a dropped object, being inanimate, has no reach,What in the world does the target's reach have to do with anything?
I'm not following. A minute ago you said I couldn't pick up an unattended object from an adjacent square because it couldn't reach me. Now you're talking about attended objects? Please be a little more explicit with your train of thought, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. :/
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To anyone still thinking that an object's status as attended or unattended modifies how close you have to be to grab it, here's yet another example:
We'll assume for a moment that I do have to be in an unattended object's space to pick it up.
I'm a 7ft tall half-orc. Adjacent to me is a halfling with two belt pouches. He is prone due to me tripping him, and is also paralyzed due to failing his save against hold person.
I attempt a steal maneuver against my helpless, prone opponent. It's an automatic success, and I grab his first belt pouch. I have now grabbed an item at ground level from an adjacent square.
Then my buddy gets nervous that the evil halfling might shake off the hold person, so he performs a coup de grace, slaying him. The second belt pouch is now unattended.
I now have to take a 5ft step into the dead halfling's space in order to grab a belt pouch that, a moment ago, I could have grabbed from further away - even though the item didn't move at all.
Can someone please explain to me why this is not completely absurd?
I'm not following. A minute ago you said I couldn't pick up an unattended object from an adjacent square because it couldn't reach me. Now you're talking about attended objects? Please be a little more explicit with your train of thought, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. :/Attended object as re: the steal combat maneuver, you see what I mean?a dropped object, being inanimate, has no reach,What in the world does the target's reach have to do with anything?
The person holding the attended object has reach. An attended object hasn't been dropped. If you don't understand what I mean, I can't explain it any more simply than that, sorry.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The person holding the attended object has reach. An attended object hasn't been dropped. If you don't understand what I mean, I can't explain it any more simply than that, sorry.I'm not following. A minute ago you said I couldn't pick up an unattended object from an adjacent square because it couldn't reach me. Now you're talking about attended objects? Please be a little more explicit with your train of thought, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. :/Attended object as re: the steal combat maneuver, you see what I mean?a dropped object, being inanimate, has no reach,What in the world does the target's reach have to do with anything?
I'm not even talking exclusively about held objects. As I've said more than once, I can use the Steal maneuver to grab someone's belt pouch from an adjacent square. (That much is explicit in the rules.) The wearer's reach has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps my confusion was due to you replying to something I didn't say? (Or me interpreting your statement as such?)
In any case, I'd be interested in your reply to the post I linked.
And just so it doesn't get buried: Link to the FAQ question.
FAQ'd. But I don't know if this will be answered as I believe this is not an issue.
Again, it matters where you are, not where your action occurs.
If you perform a disarm maneuver vs an opponent and you are flanked, the opponent hits you because *your action* provokes the attack of opportunity. The Disarm Action the other opponent's square is not what gets hit - they don't hit your forearm.
To anyone still thinking that an object's status as attended or unattended modifies how close you have to be to grab it, here's yet another example:
We'll assume for a moment that I do have to be in an unattended object's space to pick it up.
I'm a 7ft tall half-orc. Adjacent to me is a halfling with two belt pouches. He is prone due to me tripping him, and is also paralyzed due to failing his save against hold person.
I attempt a steal maneuver against my helpless, prone opponent. It's an automatic success, and I grab his first belt pouch. I have now grabbed an item at ground level from an adjacent square.
Then my buddy gets nervous that the evil halfling might shake off the hold person, so he performs a coup de grace, slaying him. The second belt pouch is now unattended.
I now have to take a 5ft step into the dead halfling's space in order to grab a belt pouch that, a moment ago, I could have grabbed from further away - even though the item didn't move at all.
Can someone please explain to me why this is not completely absurd?
The problem with your argument is that, because you can grab or steal an item with a combat maneuver using a standard action, you should be able to take the same item in a similar condition with a move action? Barring this, you have made your point and from now on, I will allow a character to grab any item within is reach as a standard action, but I will restrict the "Manipulate an Item" move action for when the character and the item are sharing the same square.
|
I know this is PF and not 3.5, but D&D tactics for the PSP lets you pick-up an item in an adjacent square w/o provoking an AoO from a monster threatening the square the item is in. It does provoke if you are adjacent to the monster though.
*it doesn't hold any weight RAW-wise but I thought it was interesting anyway
I know this is PF and not 3.5, but D&D tactics for the PSP lets you pick-up an item in an adjacent square w/o provoking an AoO from a monster threatening the square the item is in. It does provoke if you are adjacent to the monster though.
*it doesn't hold any weight RAW-wise but I thought it was interesting anyway
HA! I thought I was the only one on earth who even knew of the existence of that game. I played that game to death, best tactical D&D game since "Temple of Elemental Evil" (although toee was infamous for impassable glitches)
|
|
HA! I thought I was the only one on earth who even knew of the existence of that game. I played that game to death, best tactical D&D game since "Temple of Elemental Evil" (although toee was infamous for impassable glitches)I know this is PF and not 3.5, but D&D tactics for the PSP lets you pick-up an item in an adjacent square w/o provoking an AoO from a monster threatening the square the item is in. It does provoke if you are adjacent to the monster though.
*it doesn't hold any weight RAW-wise but I thought it was interesting anyway
I wish I could have played TOEE :( Tactics is great and taught me alot about the rules. Especially those pesky move actions to draw/sheathe an item or weapon. The only thing about it that I didn't like is that they don't show the dice rolls! That would have made the game so amazing!
*sorry for the slight thread-jack, I was just surprised to see a fellow tactics fan as well. Back to the debate...
TOEE had a radial menu with every possible combat option and maneuver, even power attack and combate expertise, the ability to sacrifice from 1 - your base attack for proportional bonus, plus when you moved a character, it would show you its exact path, and that path would turn from green to red when you have exceeded one move action and were sacrificing your standard action for extra movement.
I would say that TOEE innovated the use of radial menus that are now ubiquitous in RPG video games (and some shooters).
|
|
Okay, I only read the first and last page, so I may have missed someone else mentioning this, but...
I see a lot of "can I reach into a square or do I have to enter it..." But I don't see a lot of people talking about "the square is threatened."
here's how I see it... if you reach into the square, your in the square, or at least your "reacher" is. the square is threatened. Hence, the bit of you in the square is in the threatened square performing an action, which means AoO is triggered baring other AoO debuffs. that simple.
does it matter if it's just your arm or if it's all of you? Nope. Honey Badger Orc don't give a @%4#!
the whole thing hinges on a pesky two letter word. "In." INto as in "reach IN-to a square" means you (unless you want to say your arm,prehensile tail/tongue/hair, etc. isn't you) are IN the square.
Only way around this is TK, mage hand, or someone else's hand. or similar effect. maybe gust of wind to blow it to you? Animate Bob's corpse to hand it to you, whatever. But if you reach IN your IN.
It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to defend their positions against evidence and reason - right down to causing your physical reach to vary according to what action type you're using.
It's not about physical reach, it's about what a character can accomplish in a round. A standard action is worth more than a move action, and all the "evidence" you provided (disarm, steal, unarmed attack) all required a standard action to be accomplished. As for "reason", my logical sense is telling me that retrieving an item lying at my feet should be easier than retrieving an item lying 5 feet away (and possibly at the feet of an opponent).
Can an ogre standing ten feet away from you (two squares between you and the ogre) reach over to a dying orc adjacent to you and administer a healing potion without provoking an attack of opportunity?
The strike back feat specifically states you can make melee attacks against a foe that attacks you. Attacking a character and manipulating objects in their threatened area are two very different different things. Would this merit treating combat maneuvers like Steal and Disarm differently from manipulating things in a threatened square?
|
|
Does drinking a potion provide an attack of opportunity? casting a spell? using a scroll? etc...
yes? then if it is done in a threatened square it provokes an AoO. if the Ogres hand is in the square provoking an AoO then hand, forearm etc. is a valid target.
Strike back feat is a different thing than an AoO.
Does drinking a potion provide an attack of opportunity? casting a spell? using a scroll? etc...
yes? then if it is done in a threatened square it provokes an AoO. if the Ogres hand is in the square provoking an AoO then hand, forearm etc. is a valid target.
Strike back feat is a different thing than an AoO.
Let's try this again. You and a buddy are standing adjacent to each other and are both 15 feet away from a huge dragon. You have standard melee weapons, without reach and threaten 5 feet around you.
The dragon does not have improved trip/steal/insert maneuver here, but attempts to use a combat maneuver on your friend. The action itself provokes an AoO.
However, you cannot take the AoO against the dragon because the dragon is not in your threatened area. It does not matter if part of the dragon came into your threatened area for the attack, that's not how the rules work.
You cannot use your AoO attempt vs the dragon because you don't reach it (that is to say the square it is in, not the square it reaches out to). The provoking action is taking place in a square within your reach - after all he did a maneuver on your friend - but you still don't get to hit part of the dragon. If you did, you effectively negate a lot of the advantages of reach.
We know this is the case because if it was not, you could simply Ready an Attack or take your AoO vs a piece of the Dragon that entered your threatened area. Currently the only way to do even one of these options is with Strike Back.
It may not be "realistic" to require the Strike Back feat to do this, but that's how it goes in the mechanical PF universe. And by this I mean, hit a piece of a creature rather than the space(s) it is actually in, whether it be with an AoO or Readied Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stynkk, you and others continue to assert that "you can't attack creatures you can't reach" as if that has not been addressed dozens of times already in this thread.
If you are picking something up in a square, SOME PART OF YOUR BODY is in that square.
So it can be hit.
Understand now?
|
|
We know this is the case because if it was not, you could simply Ready an Attack or take your AoO vs a piece of the Dragon that entered your threatened area. Currently the only way to do even one of these options is with Strike Back.
It may not be "realistic" to require the Strike Back feat to do this, but that's how it goes in the mechanical PF universe. And by this I mean, hit a piece of a creature rather than the space(s) it is actually in, whether it be with an AoO or Readied Attack.
Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.
we must remember the mechanics are there to help prevent "I shot you... no you didn't... did too.. nah uh..." kind of arguments.
they are not there to take away your ability to actually play and enjoy the game. So I guess I'm RAI not RAW, but I'm good with that. : )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are picking something up in a square, SOME PART OF YOUR BODY is in that square.
So it can be hit.
Understand now?
Some of us are asserting that even though in the real world of course, some part of you is entering that square, this isn't the real world and in the game rules, you never change location. Your body remains in the same square(s). Your placement on the map does not change. Your space (a mechanical term) does not change. Your location does not change. In effect, in mechanical terms, you really DO NOT enter that square. SOME PART OF YOUR BODY is not a mechanical term. You can't target SOME PART OF YOUR BODY. There are no hit location charts. There is no mechanical way of quantifying that. Ergo, since your space does not change, and you did not MOVE YOUR FIGURE INTO THE THREATENED SQUARE, you are safe from the attack.
Now is there some area of dispute over if you can or can't pick up something in a square you are not occupying? Sure. That's a gray area to be honest. BUT, there should be no question or continuing debate over whether someone can take an AoO against someone REACHING INTO a threatened area. There's no such thing.
Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.
And some people like rules to be consistent. Meaning, if you decide at this weekends session that I can do X but then 2 months from now you forgot you said I could do X and decide I CAN'T do X I'll just say wtf? Either I can or I can't, please be consistent. When you codify some of this stuff up front it saves debates, arguments, and inconsistency later.
Stynkk, you and others continue to assert that "you can't attack creatures you can't reach" as if that has not been addressed dozens of times already in this thread.
If you are picking something up in a square, SOME PART OF YOUR BODY is in that square.
So it can be hit.
Understand now?
Interesting that you ask me that, because the reason that I keep bringing it up is that it has not "been addressed dozens of times already in this thread". Rather, it has failed to be addressed many times in this thread.
I have given you an example to use in my previous post that meets all the qualifiers of your example "SOME PART OF YOUR BODY is in that square" and provoking yet, you choose to ignore what I stated about AoOs.
You can't take an AoO against an opponent that is not in your threatened area. They did not move into the square. Mechanically, They reached into the sqare.
According to what you (and others) are stating, any time a creature's limbs or weapons pass through your threatened area, you get an AoO. Because "SOME PART OF [their] BODY [moved through] that square".
Is that what you're saying? Because you can't have it both ways.
Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.
we must remember the mechanics are there to help prevent "I shot you... no you didn't... did too.. nah uh..." kind of arguments.
they are not there to take away your ability to actually play and enjoy the game. So I guess I'm RAI not RAW, but I'm good with that. : )
I like realism too, but the rules should be consistent in their application.
The strike back feat only refers to attacks made against you. It does not refer to actions performed in your threatened area, like administering potions to dying characters.
|
|
Some of us are asserting that even though in the real world of course, some part of you is entering that square, this isn't the real world and in the game rules, you never change location.
Since it's not the real world, why do we have rules simulating the real world? why not just make it up as you go.
this sort of silly RAW behaviour is why most RAW types die in my games. I find a nice RAW way to kill them and then say "You know in the real world, you could have actually survived that by doing {x,y,z}.
So if you want to argue RAW says.. go right ahead.
Now I'm off to do a RAI vs. Raw parody in the flavor of Mac Vs. PC.
|
|
According to what you (and others) are stating, any time a creature's limbs or weapons pass through your threatened area, you get an AoO. Because "SOME PART OF [their] BODY [moved through] that square".Is that what you're saying? Because you can't have it both ways.
Then why are there AoO's vs. unarmed strikes?
This whole thread makes me wonder how many of you people have ever been in a real fight with someone actually trained to fight.
perhaps in the future it would be helpful if you noted in your question something such as RAW ONLY... REAL WORLD EXAMPLES UNWELCOME. lol.
|
|
Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.And some people like rules to be consistent. Meaning, if you decide at this weekends session that I can do X but then 2 months from now you forgot you said I could do X and decide I CAN'T do X I'll just say wtf? Either I can or I can't, please be consistent. When you codify some of this stuff up front it saves debates, arguments, and inconsistency later.
here is a little problem with that. Your assuming i'll be inconsistent. have a been so far? Nope. you have trust issues with the DM you might want to look into a game like monopoly or something, and definitely avoid poker. they flat out lie in poker. lol.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why are there AoO's vs. unarmed strikes?This whole thread makes me wonder how many of you people have ever been in a real fight with someone actually trained to fight.
perhaps in the future it would be helpful if you noted in your question something such as RAW ONLY... REAL WORLD EXAMPLES UNWELCOME. lol.
This is a textbook example of a post that adds nothing to the discussion and only exists to antagonize other posters.
|
|
Agree and disagree.
It doesn't add to the discussion proper. Given.
not my intent to antagonize however. I do however admit to being cranky upfront. ; ) I bring up the fighting because I'm Ex-military and have a wee bit of experience in the matter. and from that experience It colours my interpretation of the rules.
It does have merit,however, in that it would be nice if people who only wanted a RAW discussion would say so up front.
that said, I'll drop it. and go to bed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@CrankyRWMage
This portion of the forums is about discussing RAW, and not RAI, thus it is named Rules Questions. This section is rather important to many players who play in Pathfinder Society Organised Play, because there are no house-rules allowed in PFS.
There are many positions I take in this section of the forums which are directly in contradiction of how I believe the rules should be, and in my home games do use house-rules in place of. This is because I realise that there is a difference between what the mechanics of the game are, and which mechanics I use in games which are not Pathfinder Society.
In other words, I like to know what the rules actually are before I decide what rules I want to change in my own games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to what you (and others) are stating, any time a creature's limbs or weapons pass through your threatened area, you get an AoO. Because "SOME PART OF [their] BODY [moved through] that square".
Stynkk, this is your standard operating procedure and why I typically ignore your posts.
I have not said anything like this. You routinely say things like "according to you [a bunch of bogus bullcrap you make up because you think it makes a better argument for you] and so therefore..."
What I have said, repeatedly, with explicit clarifiction is the following:
The RULES AS WRITTEN say that certain actions in a threatened square provoke attacks of opportunity (not a random body part presumably moving through a portion of a square Stynkk, a SPECIFIC DEFINED ACTION). One of those specific defined actions is picking up an item.
If the action occurs in the square of the item, then by RAW it provokes an attack of opportunity.
About two dozen people have FAQ'ed this issue because they understand what I and others are saying.
You don't.
Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future. I really, really am sick of it.
The RULES AS WRITTEN say that certain actions in a threatened square provoke attacks of opportunity (not a random body part presumably moving through a portion of a square Stynkk, a SPECIFIC DEFINED ACTION). One of those specific defined actions is picking up an item.
If the action occurs in the square of the item, then by RAW it provokes an attack of opportunity.
You have missed the point I have made repeatedly. I do not disagree that picking the item up provokes.
If the creature is not in a threatened square, it can perform all the provoking actions it wants. No one can make an AoO against you if they do not threaten your square. Please tell me why you think picking an item up changes what square you occupy. Oh, and a quote from the RAW would really be helpful. If you can't provide any RAW support, then I'm going to write off your argument.
The RULES AS WRITTEN say that certain actions in a threatened square provoke attacks of opportunity (not a random body part presumably moving through a portion of a square Stynkk, a SPECIFIC DEFINED ACTION). One of those specific defined actions is picking up an item.
If the action occurs in the square of the item, then by RAW it provokes an attack of opportunity.
You have missed the point I have made repeatedly. I do not disagree that picking the item up provokes.
If the creature is not in a threatened square, it can perform all the provoking actions it wants. No one can make an AoO against you if they do not threaten your square. Please tell me why you think picking an item up changes what square you occupy. Oh, and a quote from the RAW would really be helpful. If you can't provide any RAW support, then I'm going to write off your argument.
Thanks Tarantula. Maybe he/she will listen to you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dropped weapon fall into? Yours or theirs? It would seem obvious that most people would assume the weapon dropped straight down, which means you are reaching into an adjacent square to pick up the weapon.
So there is at least one rule which seems to indicate you can pick up a weapon in an adjacent square.
Playing devil's advocate again, a dropped weapon hasn't necessarily hit the ground yet, and I imagine that if you do disarm someone and manage to actually take their weapon off them, it never touched the ground at all. So basically, it could be argued that Disarm in that respect is a shaky grounds for setting a precedent.
I now have to take a 5ft step into the dead halfling's space in order to grab a belt pouch that, a moment ago, I could have grabbed from further away - even though the item didn't move at all.
Can someone please explain to me why this is not completely absurd?
A very good argument and I am almost convinced, but I am not sure its enough of a precedent to state your interpretation is RAW as they are two different actions - one is a move action Manipulate Item and one a Combat Manouevre.
What is interesting about your example is that when the prone held halfling was alive and you were using the Steal Combat Manouvre the only person who could have made an AoO on you was the halfling themselves (which of course they were incapable of doing).
Yet when the halfling is dead and you try to just pick up the item as a Move action, everyone in a square adjacent to the one you stand in can make an AoO on you.
This to me indicates that the Steal manouevre and the Manipulate Item action by RAW cannot be considered similar enough for one to set a precedent for the other.
I will allow a character to grab any item within is reach as a standard action, but I will restrict the "Manipulate an Item" move action for when the character and the item are sharing the same square.
This is a very good ruling IMHO, though obviously not RAW.
Maybe to take an unattended item from an adjacent unoccupied square you need to perform the Steal manaouvre (taking that Standard Action)against a CMD of zero (10 +0 (BAB) -5 (dex) -5 (str) +0 (size of a square)); so an auto success unless your CMB is -2 or worse.
So yeah pick up an item from an adjacent unoccupied item is a Standard action that doesn't provoke and requires a CMB check vs DC of Zero.
I would argue that is RAW.
The original question remains however - does the Move Action Manipulate Item allow someone to pick up an item in an adjacent square?
|
|
Actually CMD for an empty space should have a -8 size modifier as you could steal off a Fine size creature, also a -4 to be prone, so DC -12. Of course you could always roll a natural 1.
It also raises the option to pick up an item in your own square without provoking any AoO by spending a Standard action and making a CMB check DC -12, effectively stealing from the empty square you are in.
I think a GM can still rule that Steve must be in the square to pick up the sword and this provoke. I don't think you would ned to stand on a desk to pick something up off of it. I think you can occupy the same space as a desk and even use it as cover for yourself but not for your opponents (even in melee) in the same way you can use a tree for cover. I don't think combat maneuvers like disarm and steal set a precedent for picking things up from adjacent spaces because they represent two very different things. I think ruling that you can pick up an object from an adjacent space is setting up a catch-22 where you perform an action that provokes but you remove that action spacially from the actor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RULES AS WRITTEN say that certain actions in a threatened square provoke attacks of opportunity (not a random body part presumably moving through a portion of a square Stynkk, a SPECIFIC DEFINED ACTION). One of those specific defined actions is picking up an item.
If the action occurs in the square of the item, then by RAW it provokes an attack of opportunity.
You have missed the point I have made repeatedly. I do not disagree that picking the item up provokes.
If the creature is not in a threatened square, it can perform all the provoking actions it wants. No one can make an AoO against you if they do not threaten your square. Please tell me why you think picking an item up changes what square you occupy. Oh, and a quote from the RAW would really be helpful. If you can't provide any RAW support, then I'm going to write off your argument.
Tarantula and Stynkk.
It is YOU who are not understanding the argument. I have REPEATEDLY SAID that ruling this way is an option, but that ruling the other way is just as valid according to RAW.
That's the purpose for the FAQ. To get a ruling on what you and I and others don't agree the RAW says.
Deliberately mischaracterizing my argument to try to make your argument look better is just cheap grandstanding.
I will wait to see if the FAQ is answered. This will need Paizo to resolve.
Although the two of you seem to think that once you weigh in on a RAW dispute all debate is over, there are plenty of us who disagree with your contention that you are the final arbiter on rules debates.
Last try AD.
The only thing RAW is unclear about with regard to this is whether you actually can pick up an item from an adjacent square. This is what the FAQ needs to address.
RAW states that picking up an item provokes.
RAW states that characters threatening the space a character occupies when making a provoking action can take an AoO on that character.
RAW states that picking up an item does not change your character's square.
Therefore, unless you threaten the space a character is in, you cannot make an AoO against them regardless of the provoking action they take.
The question, is whether you can pick up an item from an adjacent square.
1) If you can, then it is possible to pick that item up without being subject to an AoO from someone who threatens the item square but not the item picker upper square.
2) If you can't pick up items from an adjacent square, then you would have to occupy the item's square, and would be subject to the AoO.
We want to know which of the two of these is correct. You are the only one disagreeing with RAW and stating that a character would be subject to an AoO when the creature making the AoO does not threaten his square.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are the only one disagreeing with RAW and stating that a character would be subject to an AoO when the creature making the AoO does not threaten his square.
No, he's not the only one.
1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.
This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.
3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.
This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.
Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.
Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.
4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless.
If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.
5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!"
Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.
It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.
It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."
The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.
6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes.
That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.
Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake?
There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way.
The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column."
The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!"
Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.
7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.
Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.
So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.
Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.
8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power.
Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.
At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad.
Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.
9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.
The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.
The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.
Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.
Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.
10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted!
(Oooh, aaah!)
I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it."
I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on.
There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems.
Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms.
If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.
So: there they are. Make of them what you will.
Hey guys here's a question. When someone disarms you, can you use your move action to pick up the weapon again assuming no one else beats you to it?