So, Mabven, if I charge a large creature with intent to trip (or whatever) when do I provoke? At the beginning of my movement through a threatened hex?
If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.
?????
The first part of that action which provokes is when you first have the choice to take the aoo. If you are the large monster, and the charging character leaves your threatened square, you may choose to take your aoo then, or you may choose to not take it, and when he makes a trip attempt, you may again choose to take it. Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action.
...I don't find that sentence anywhere in the combat section of the prd, in either form.1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.I believe you are referring to
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.I was copy and pasting from Tarantula's quote. I checked the PRD, and it was close so I am guilty of skim reading, but that does change the fact that there is not language saying one actions can not provoke more than one if it contains two provoking actions, except for the comment about moving. Anything else should be fair game.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity,....The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.And an opportunity is an action which provokes. You assume that all conditions which allow an action to allow an aoo are opportunities, when in reality, an opportunity is an action which provokes. Limit one aoo per opportunity == one aoo per action.
So, you see that you have misquoted the rules, by taking someone else's quote, and not looking it up yourself. You stated this misquote as authoritative against the fact that you are limited to one aoo per action, despite the fact that the quote does not exist, and the fact that James Jacobs has told us. Yet I am the one making assumptions. Hmm...
I am not ignoring James' statement, I am believing him despite it, and also taking it for the type of humility which is necessary when part of your job is to discuss rules with rules-lawyers. He has told us what he believes the intent of the rules is, I tend to believe the person who is overall in-charge of the publication on what the intention is. If this were a discussion of how different mechanics work together, very detail stuff, then I would reserve judgement for when the design team weighs in. But since this is about the intended function of a basic rule, and not a complicated interaction of multiple abilities across multiple sources, I am going to believe the guy who is responsible for the overall intention of the publication (ie, the boss)
But since this is about the intended function of a basic rule, and not a complicated interaction of multiple abilities across multiple sources, I am going to believe the guy who is responsible for the overall intention of the publication (ie, the boss)
But, he's not the boss?
You assume the sentence about moving provoking only once is an exception, when in reality it is an example of how all actions can only provoke once. If they listed 2 examples, say moving through multiple threatened squares, and charging with an unarmed attack, would you then say that those two are the only exceptions? What if they provided 10 examples, would you say that those 10 are exceptions?
It is an exception.
"This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)."This by itself, would mean that moving around a creature with combat reflexes would provoke for each threatened square you moved out of. By adding, "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." makes moving out of 1 or more squares count as only one opportunity.
And an opportunity is an action which provokes.
No. An opportunity is when a character takes an action listed in the table, OR is subject to a feat or other ability which causes an opportunity.
Here's something even more odd. "Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail."
Casting defensively says that you won't provoke ANY AoO's. Yet, ranged touch states: "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively."
If you cast defensively, you don't provoke any AoO's. But if its an RTA you provoke one.
If you cast normally, you provoke an AoO, but if its an RTA you provoke one. You've now provoked 2 AoO's.
That is what he's saying. But, not even james maissen is willing to go that far.If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.
?????
Just because james maisson is not willing to go that far does not mean it is not the rule. James Jacobs says it is the rule, and I am going to take his interpretation over james maisson's (although I do give much weight to james maissons' opinions, as they often seem to fall on the side of what seems to be common-sense to me)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first part of that action which provokes is when you first have the choice to take the aoo. If you are the large monster, and the charging character leaves your threatened square, you may choose to take your aoo then, or you may choose to not take it, and when he makes a trip attempt, you may again choose to take it. Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action.So, Mabven, if I charge a large creature with intent to trip (or whatever) when do I provoke? At the beginning of my movement through a threatened hex?
If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.
?????
So you're saying there are two opportunities, but you can only take one of them?
Where is THAT in the rules Mabven?
So you're saying there are two opportunities, but you can only take one of them?
Where is THAT in the rules Mabven?
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity).
I don't know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of stuff about JB & RTAI don't know about anyone else, but I'm not arguing that RTA don't provoke an AoO. I think that is perfectly clear. What I am arguing is, when made as part of the casting of a spell, I don't interpret the RTA to provoke separately from the spell, thus I feel only one AoO is warranted, not two.
From the quote you keep referring to, he is only saying that RTA do provoke. I don't read anything in his comment that indicates it should be treated as a separate AoO from the casting, nor do I read anything in his comment that indicates that it should be treated as only one AoO with the casting.
I'm going to try to explain my position as clearly as possible, since it may have been muddied over the past...~150 posts.
It's the quote in conjunction with the Ranged Touch Spells in Combat.
The spell provokes, right?
And the attacks are made as part of the same Action as the spell, right?
Let's assume that there's a max of one provocation per Action, which means there'll be one AoO total, and then put that assumption aside for a second.
We also know that Jason B. added the Ranged Touch Spells in Combat to the game, since it did not exist in 3.5.
This section says that ranged touch attacks from spells provoke, even if the spell is cast defensively. This says that if you do cast defensively, then you'll still be provoking the AoO from the RTAs, because that's what normally happens. It's not "The ranged touch attacks made as part of this spell only provoke if you cast defensively." It's "Ranged touch attacks as part of a spell provoke, and if you happen to cast defensively, they still provoke unlike what you could gather from the way 3.5 did it."
In 3.5, whether you provoked AoOs from RTAs made as part of a successfully defensively cast spell was highly ambiguous. This is the ambiguity that JB mentions in the post I linked to.
JB also mentioned one of the other reasons he made the change: to make all ranged attacks the same. In 3.5, there was a strong case that by casting defensively, you could avoid the AoOs from the RTAs. The goal of the addition of that section of the text was to show that the RTAs granted by spells follow the same rules as all Ranged Attacks. This is the homogeneity that Jason mentions in the linked post.
Ok, going back to the one provocation per Action assumption. If this were the case, then the text about ranged touch attacks provoking, which are done in the same Action as the spell, would be useless.
Why? Because under this assumption, you've already provoked.
And what happens if you cast defensively under this assumption? Well, then you still provoke an AoO, due to the RTAs.
Ok, so that's silly. Why would Jason add text that was useless? And wait a minute, this assumption of ours means that a ranged full attack wouldn't provoke! That's silly too, because we know it does.
So let's scrap that assumption.
Suddenly, that section isn't useless, and ranged full attacks provoke an AoO for each attack, which is what we know to be true.
Suddenly our magus using spell combat and unarmed strikes without IUS is provoking 2 AoOs from his one full-round action.
-----
What is an attack of opportunity meant to represent?
"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. "
Well OK then. And what does that mean? Well, either moving out of a threatened square or performing a distracting act.
We know that making a ranged attack is a distracting act, since it is surely not moving out of a threatened square (can we all agree on that? :D).
We also know that simply by doing a distracting act, we provoke.
We also know the following:
"but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)"
So if the opponent provokes twice, I can make two AoOs, since, as the rules state, each one represents a different opportunity.
Ok, so the intent is that when ever a provocation happens, you can make an AoO. If you keep on focusing elsewhere (doing a distracting act), you surely will be provoking more often.
You don't suddenly become immune to being distracted after you start an Action. If you continue to do a distracting act, such as focusing way down the battlefield to figure out where to place your arrow or ray, you provoke.
The first part of that action which provokes is when you first have the choice to take the aoo. If you are the large monster, and the charging character leaves your threatened square, you may choose to take your aoo then, or you may choose to not take it, and when he makes a trip attempt, you may again choose to take it. Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action.So, Mabven, if I charge a large creature with intent to trip (or whatever) when do I provoke? At the beginning of my movement through a threatened hex?
If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.
?????
So you're saying there are two opportunities, but you can only take one of them?
Where is THAT in the rules Mabven?
No, I am saying that there is one opportunity which contains two conditions which individually would provoke. The charge is the opportunity, as James Jacobs has said, one aoo per action. An opportunity is an action which provokes, the conditions which provoke are not opportunities, they are the conditions which turn the action into an opportunity.
No, I am saying that there is one opportunity which contains two conditions which individually would provoke. The charge is the opportunity, as James Jacobs has said, one aoo per action. An opportunity is an action which provokes, the conditions which provoke are not opportunities, they are the conditions which turn the action into an opportunity.
Mabven, does that mean that a character with Greater Trip & CR that uses their AoO to make a Trip attempt cannot use the AoO provoked by Greater Trip? Since they already used the "AoO for that action"?
The narrowness of the reading/ruling falls apart quickly.
But since this is about the intended function of a basic rule, and not a complicated interaction of multiple abilities across multiple sources, I am going to believe the guy who is responsible for the overall intention of the publication (ie, the boss)But, he's not the boss?
Exactly, and that is what I am trying to tell her. He is in charge of Golarion. Jason is in charge of the rules. Jason can tell no more change Golarion canon than James can decide intent for the rules.
I have no idea why you she keeps insisting that James has power to decide what the rules are when I have several quotes with him saying it is not his area. I even have more quotes I have not posted yet, but those will probably be ignored also.
PS:Healer, if you are a "he" I do apologize. I am just going by the avatar.
The first part of that action which provokes is when you first have the choice to take the aoo. If you are the large monster, and the charging character leaves your threatened square, you may choose to take your aoo then, or you may choose to not take it, and when he makes a trip attempt, you may again choose to take it. Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action.
This is good. Lets break spellcasting down in the magic section.
"Casting Time ... You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."AoO's interrupt. So, Caster Bob who is in a threatened square says, "I cast scorching ray." This provokes, because he cast a spell while threatened. We know this happens before the spell comes into effect, because it is possible for Caster Bob to lose the spell from Injury if he doesn't make a concentration check.
"Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."
Ok, Ogre with combat reflexes swings at Bob, but Bob is lucky and the Ogre misses. We now resume the action where we left it, Bob casting his spell.
Scorching Ray is a standard action, so it now finishes, and spell comes into effect. Caster Bob targets the Ogre with all 3 rays. Wait, whats that? Caster Bob is now making 3 Ranged Touch Attacks. The Ogre quite intelligently makes his 3 AoO's for these 3 RTA's. Guess what, he hits with all 3! 10 damage each hit to Caster Bob!
Bob now has to make 3 concentration checks at 10 + damage(10) + level(2) = 22 in order to finish casting his spell. Bob makes his checks, and fries the Ogre. Lucky Bob.
No, I am saying that there is one opportunity which contains two conditions which individually would provoke. The charge is the opportunity, as James Jacobs has said, one aoo per action. An opportunity is an action which provokes, the conditions which provoke are not opportunities, they are the conditions which turn the action into an opportunity.Mabven, does that mean that a character with Greater Trip & CR that uses their AoO to make a Trip attempt cannot use the AoO provoked by Greater Trip? Since they already used the "AoO for that action"?
The narrowness of the reading/ruling falls apart quickly.
No, it does not. The action which provoked the trip allows the trip attempt. Greater Trip allows an action which would not normally allow an aoo, falling prone, to provoke another aoo. Two actions, two aoo's. Just because one of the actions is a free action, which would not normally provoke, does not mean it is part of the original action which provoked the original aoo.
You can invent a thousand such scenarios, and imagine there is a hole in the rules, but there is not.
I use my full-attack action to shoot three arrows while adjacent to an orc with a scimitar. He possesses combat reflexes and a Dexterity modifier of +5 (since you know, scimitars now mean Dervish Dancers). I do not possesses Point Blank Master or any other similar ability or feat.
How many AoOs have I provoked?
More quotes referring to Jason as the rules guy:
Well... I didn't write the rules, for one thing. Jason revised and wrote them. He might have his own unspoken reasons for making the changes he did, I suppose.
In any event, it's not changing. So I guess my work here is done! :P
That's the "Official" answer until Jason says yes or no and the errata gets updated, at least, but I'm relatively certain he'll agree with the reasoning.
I don't just make this stuff up.
|
Tarantula, another interpretation would be: after Bob makes all pertinent decisions on casting the spell, the ogre takes an AoO regardless of whether Bob made his check to cast defensively. Nice and simple.
----
80-some posts later and we still haven't agreed. As I stated back then, I don't imagine I'll change anyone's mind on this subject, but I believe it's worth pointing something out that others might not have (disclaimer: I haven't thoroughly read all 4-5 threads on the matter).
The Combat Reflexes (CR) feat seems to be giving the largest portion of the contradictions. CR was created (I'm dipping into RAI here) to allow PCs to take advantage of openings from multiple opponents per round, and in rare cases an enemy acting foolishly more than once in a round. It gives them an option to cover those situations when, for example, a troop of goblins is trying to run around and cut off their path. In that sense, it has very basic language; multiple opportunities? Hit those guys, too!
I doubt very much it was written to be the granter of godlike speed that some infer. Really, four strikes against a spellcaster when his attack takes no more effort to cast than Darkness? When you interpret the CR feat's power beyond basic action/reaction, it gives the impression of exploiting text loopholes. Note I didn't use the term RAW because it's still ambiguous. I'm great with J.J.'s interpretation.
I am no longer including you in my replies, as you have shown yourself capable of creating quotes from whole-cloth, and claiming them to be quotes from the Core Rulebook. You can not win a debate with falsehoods.
I quoted wraithstrike, and did not verify it. It looked correct and wraithstrike is rarely wrong. Please call me out on anything I have said is a quote from the rulebook directly in a post (rather than quoting someone elses post).
I use my full-attack action to shoot three arrows while adjacent to an orc with a scimitar. He possesses combat reflexes and a Dexterity modifier of +5 (since you know, scimitars now mean Dervish Dancers). I do not possesses Point Blank Master or any other similar ability or feat.
How many AoOs have I provoked?
One. A full-attack action is a single action, it allows exactly one AoO. This is both my interpretation, and James Jacobs'.
No, it does not. The action which provoked the trip allows the trip attempt. Greater Trip allows an action which would not normally allow an aoo, falling prone, to provoke another aoo. Two actions, two aoo's. Just because one of the actions is a free action, which would not normally provoke, does not mean it is part of the original action which provoked the original aoo.
You can invent a thousand such scenarios, and imagine there is a hole in the rules, but there is not.
What? Sorry, but an AoO is not an action, there is no free action as you suggest. There's not a hole in the rules, just a hole in your rules.
Under your assertion the AoO from Greater trip would not be allowed to fuction like you said "Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action."
Greater Trip does not allow for more Actions than the original. it is binary, yes or no, 1 or 0 and it is the same across all instances. Already your theory is crumbling since you've now allowed a single action that includes 2 provocations and 2 AoOs. We are looking for something more consistent.
The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
No it doesn't. It does not even hint at it.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.
That quote is referring to opportunities, not actions.
You can not find a quote that limits AoO's to actions other than the oen referencing moving, and that is a specific exception.
No, it does not. The action which provoked the trip allows the trip attempt. Greater Trip allows an action which would not normally allow an aoo, falling prone, to provoke another aoo. Two actions, two aoo's. Just because one of the actions is a free action, which would not normally provoke, does not mean it is part of the original action which provoked the original aoo.
You can invent a thousand such scenarios, and imagine there is a hole in the rules, but there is not.
What? Sorry, but an AoO is not an action, there is no free action as you suggest. There's not a hole in the rules, just a hole in your rules.
Under your assertion the AoO from Greater trip would not be allowed to fuction like you said "Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action."
Greater Trip does not allow for more Actions than the original. it is binary, yes or no, 1 or 0 and it is the same across all instances. Already your theory is crumbling since you've now allowed a single action that includes 2 provocations and 2 AoOs. We are looking for something more consistent.
Look at the chart of actions. Under free actions you will find "drop to the floor." This is what you are doing when you are tripped. Just because it is involuntary, does not change the fact that it is an action.
Tarantula, another interpretation would be: after Bob makes all pertinent decisions on casting the spell, the ogre takes an AoO regardless of whether Bob made his check to cast defensively. Nice and simple.
This interpretation completely ignores the text "You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."
The spell has not come into effect until the action is finished. If casting the spell provokes an AoO, then the AoO interrupts before the action of casting the spell has finished. This allows for a slightly different scenario though.Caster bob "I cast scorching Ray" (intending to target the Ogre)
Ogre: Takes his AoO but misses. (Bob thinks to himself, hmm, if the Ogre missed, then maybe he isn't that strong.)
Caster Bob "I don't care about that ogre, I'm going to target that BBEG wizard over there."
Ogre: 3 more AoO for 3 Ranged Touch attacks.
The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
No it doesn't. It does not even hint at it.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.That quote is referring to opportunities, not actions.
You can not find a quote that limits AoO's to actions other than the oen referencing moving, and that is a specific exception.
You are assuming that moving is a specific exception. It is an equally valid reading of RAW that it is an example, not an exception. You are making assumptions about things which are not specified, and stating that they are specified. Just because you reject the interpretation that moving is an example of how you may not take more than one aoo per opportunity does not exclude that interpretation of RAW. Plus, James Jacobs agrees.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the chart of actions. Under free actions you will find "drop to the floor." This is what you are doing when you are tripped. Just because it is involuntary, does not change the fact that it is an action.
... someone cannot force you to take actions. Going Prone is not the same as getting Tripped. One is the free action the other is no action (result of an attack). There is no action involved, but you've successfully invalidated Greater Trip and a bunch of other feats with your reading.
Look at the Action table and find what kind of action an Attack of Opportunity is, I'll be waiting :).
Plus, James Jacobs agrees.
That does not matter. He has no more control over the rules than myself or Cosmo. You can quote that all day, but until James gets power to decide intent he is just another Paizo employee as far as rules go.
I did not claim that aoo was on that chart. Where does it say that an action which is forced upon you is not an action? You are assuming this, and citing no rules to support it. This in no way invalidates Greater Trip, the aoo you get from the feat is provoked by your opponent "dropping to the floor". It does, however, invalidate trip-chaining, and GT+VS, which of course, was my position all along.
Plus, James Jacobs agrees.That does not matter. He has no more control over the rules than myself or Cosmo. You can quote that all day, but until James gets power to decide intent he is just another Paizo employee as far as rules go.
That's very nice. But James Jacobs says so.
|
Bob now has to make 3 concentration checks at 10 + damage(10) + level(2) = 22 in order to finish casting his spell. Bob makes his checks, and fries the Ogre. Lucky Bob.
Ehm, no. Bob has already finished his spell. While a free action as part of casting the spell, the ray are fired after the spell has been completed, so Bob don' need to make a concentration check to fire them.
He need to be still alive and conscious after the ogre hits(s).
I am a bit dubious about the idea that scorching ray will provoke once per ray, but there is no doubt that someone with combat reflex can attack once per provocation.
Bob now has to make 3 concentration checks at 10 + damage(10) + level(2) = 22 in order to finish casting his spell. Bob makes his checks, and fries the Ogre. Lucky Bob.Ehm, no. Bob has already finished his spell. While a free action as part of casting the spell, the ray are fired after the spell has been completed, so Bob don' need to make a concentration check to fire them.
He need to be still alive and conscious after the ogre hits(s).
I am a bit dubious about the idea that scorching ray will provoke once per ray, but there is no doubt that someone with combat reflex can attack once per provocation.
Except that we have been told by James Jacobs that it is one aoo per action. Since the ranged touch is part of the same action as casting the spell, one provocation, and if he is hit, no matter how you justify when during the action the hit happens, the caster must make a concentration check against the damage.
Bob now has to make 3 concentration checks at 10 + damage(10) + level(2) = 22 in order to finish casting his spell. Bob makes his checks, and fries the Ogre. Lucky Bob.Ehm, no. Bob has already finished his spell. While a free action as part of casting the spell, the ray are fired after the spell has been completed, so Bob don' need to make a concentration check to fire them.
He need to be still alive and conscious after the ogre hits(s).
I am a bit dubious about the idea that scorching ray will provoke once per ray, but there is no doubt that someone with combat reflex can attack once per provocation.
I was a little hesitant on that part. But under magic, "The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."
As a result, I believe that RTAs made to target a spell do in fact require concentration checks to avoid losing the spell, because they are an AoO provoked by the spell.
You are assuming that moving is a specific exception. It is an equally valid reading of RAW that it is an example, not an exception. You are making assumptions about things which are not specified, and stating that they are specified. Just because you reject the interpretation that moving is an example of how you may not take more than one aoo per opportunity does not exclude that interpretation of RAW. Plus, James Jacobs agrees.The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
No it doesn't. It does not even hint at it.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.That quote is referring to opportunities, not actions.
You can not find a quote that limits AoO's to actions other than the oen referencing moving, and that is a specific exception.
The rules don't support your reading. I have yet to see a rules quote that limits AoO's to actions as opposed to opportunities, and James does not deal with the rules as verified by his own post.
As I see it unless you can show me a James Jacobs post that shows he can make core rules, or a statement in the book limiting AoO's to actions instead of opportunities the RAW says the opportunities have it.
As a reminder:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)
Note that by RAW the restriction is on opportunities, and not actions.
Meattrace as annoying as the pointless repetition is, that was not necessary. I have already shown that James has no power in the rules department. Unless she can provide a counter-quote I am going to ignore all references to his name.
|
|
The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
No it doesn't. It does not even hint at it.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.That quote is referring to opportunities, not actions.
You can not find a quote that limits AoO's to actions other than the oen referencing moving, and that is a specific exception.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from battle.
One Action = One Opportunity
It is important to realize that the plurality of "attacks of opportunity" is directly related to the plurality of "actions". It does not infer that multiple opportunities are provided by a singular action.
Combat Reflexes and additional Attacks of Opportunity: This feat does not allow you to make more than one attack for a given opportunity.
One opportunity allows one attack.
Should we all just chalk your post up to malicious intent?This thread is never going to agree on anything while we have to try to convince her. There is literally nothing that will convince her.
So why don't we continue the argument between the two sides that actually have cogent arguments. I think we were ALMOST coming to a consensus about certain aspects of the debate.
I agree.
The rules don't support your reading. I have yet to see a rules quote that limits AoO's to actions as opposed to opportunities, and James does not deal with the rules as verified by his own post.
As I see it unless you can show me a James Jacobs post that shows he can make core rules, or a statement in the book limiting AoO's to actions instead of opportunities the RAW says the opportunities have it.
As a reminder:
Note that by RAW the restriction is on opportunities, and not actions.
To be fair, it does say:
"Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square."It does lend credence to the position that only actions a character takes can provoke (with exceptions for feats where specific trumps general).
I have ignored nothing, and called no one a liar. I have debated you all point for point, and made very relevant and rational arguments, and additionally, have quoted the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating, yet I am the one who is ignored (many times in this thread I have made compelling arguments which are passed over), despite overwhelming evidence in my favor. When you ignore my points, and make other unrelated arguments to try and cloud the issue, it is not I who is ignoring people and calling them names.
You've ignored all the posts by James Jacobs saying, essentially, "but hey, don't listen to me, I'm not a rules guy". You keep calling him editor in chief, which he is not, and you defer to HIS advice as if it were the word of god, while ignoring the entirety of the CRB, everyone else's arguments, and Jason's post.
You are assuming that moving is a specific exception. It is an equally valid reading of RAW that it is an example, not an exception. You are making assumptions about things which are not specified, and stating that they are specified. Just because you reject the interpretation that moving is an example of how you may not take more than one aoo per opportunity does not exclude that interpretation of RAW. Plus, James Jacobs agrees.The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
No it doesn't. It does not even hint at it.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.That quote is referring to opportunities, not actions.
You can not find a quote that limits AoO's to actions other than the oen referencing moving, and that is a specific exception.
The rules don't support your reading. I have yet to see a rules quote that limits AoO's to actions as opposed to opportunities, and James does not deal with the rules as verified by his own post.
As I see it unless you can show me a James Jacobs post that shows he can make core rules, or a statement in the book limiting AoO's to actions instead of opportunities the RAW says the opportunities have it.
As a reminder:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)Note that by RAW the restriction is on opportunities, and not actions.
And where is the rule stating that an opportunity is every condition which provokes? It can be easily inferred that an opportunity is an action which provokes, and I have developer confirmation. Until you have a more authoritative developer quote, you are behind.
The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
Show me a quote with the word "action" that supports that statement.
|
|
Look at the chart of actions. Under free actions you will find "drop to the floor." This is what you are doing when you are tripped. Just because it is involuntary, does not change the fact that it is an action.No, it does not. The action which provoked the trip allows the trip attempt. Greater Trip allows an action which would not normally allow an aoo, falling prone, to provoke another aoo. Two actions, two aoo's. Just because one of the actions is a free action, which would not normally provoke, does not mean it is part of the original action which provoked the original aoo.
You can invent a thousand such scenarios, and imagine there is a hole in the rules, but there is not.
What? Sorry, but an AoO is not an action, there is no free action as you suggest. There's not a hole in the rules, just a hole in your rules.
Under your assertion the AoO from Greater trip would not be allowed to fuction like you said "Just because there are multiple different points in the action when you can choose to take the aoo, it does not change the fact that once you make that choice, you have used your aoo for that action."
Greater Trip does not allow for more Actions than the original. it is binary, yes or no, 1 or 0 and it is the same across all instances. Already your theory is crumbling since you've now allowed a single action that includes 2 provocations and 2 AoOs. We are looking for something more consistent.
Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.
Trip
..
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
No, actually it is not the same thing. Drop prone is a voluntary action. Being knocked prone is an involuntary action.