JJ isn't a developer and what he says isn't a ruling by any means. If you want to argue RAW with citations you need a dev like SKR or Jason Buhlman (sp?).Actually, EVERYTHING which is not inherently within the written rules can be used to address RAI, but only the written rules themselves can be used to address RAW.
If you disagree with the rules concept that an AoO is an Action, provide RAW saying that it is not.
Without RAW declaring an AoO as a non-action, I will hold that you actually doing something is inherently you taking an action. This is a complicated and difficult to understand concept, obviously.
Actually, if we're going down that path, the burden of proof is on proof that it IS an action. There isn't actually anything in the book that states it is an action. It's a fair assumption though, and clearly rules as intended.
It is not the common wisdom.
This is a complicated and difficult to understand concept, obviously.
The majority of the audience can't seem to get past the first one, though.
Why so hostile?
Then step back and stop responding?
But then the terrorists would win!
Actually, if we're going down that path, the burden of proof is on proof that it IS an action. There isn't actually anything in the book that states it is an action. It's a fair assumption though, and clearly rules as intended.JJ isn't a developer and what he says isn't a ruling by any means. If you want to argue RAW with citations you need a dev like SKR or Jason Buhlman (sp?).Actually, EVERYTHING which is not inherently within the written rules can be used to address RAI, but only the written rules themselves can be used to address RAW.
If you disagree with the rules concept that an AoO is an Action, provide RAW saying that it is not.
Without RAW declaring an AoO as a non-action, I will hold that you actually doing something is inherently you taking an action. This is a complicated and difficult to understand concept, obviously.
An attack is explicitly identified as an action.
An AoO is an attack.
Next.
No. You can attack as an action, but that doesn't mean that all attacks are necessarily actions. To make a comparision, you can use a spell to deal acid damage, that does not mean a black dragon's breath is a spell.
And, even IF we assume that is true that the text from the "attack" action section applies to attacks of opportunity, then attacks of opportunity are standard actions and can therefore only be taken on your turn and restricts you to only make a single move action, a single swift/immediate action and free actions in addition to it.
So not only are you wrong, but even if we pretended you were right, it would not help in the slightest as you can then only quickdraw weapons during an AoO that is made on your turn - which was never the issue.
In addition, combat reflexes would be more or less useless unless you use a full-attack action to provoke more than one AoO (as you can only make several attacks if you take the full-attack action, as stated by the Attack action rules).
In today's episode of DeathQuaker summarizes!
Regarding OP
It is useful if you are a switch hitter, two weapon fighter, want to draw your weapon without having to move so you can make a full attack, or throw weapons.
Regarding Attacks vs Actions Discussion, and is an AAO a kind of Action?
To start, let's look at the Combat Section in the Core Rules:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
<snip>
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
You'll see "one or more free actions while taking another action normally" is what makes drawing a weapon as a free action with Quick Draw very nice, because there aren't many restrictions imposed upon it save by the GM's hopefully reasonable judgment.
Swift can only happen on your turn, and only once during that turn. Immediate can happen not on your turn, but can only be once per round.
I can see why one would want to say an AOO is an immediate action since it's an attack you make not on your turn, but of course there are ways you can make more than one AOO a round (Combat Reflexes).
So.... and we will see regarding AOOs, they are not in the list anywhere on the table of actions.
Scrolling down, they're not even in the list of Miscellaneous actions (such as 5 foot step).
That is, to an extent, frustrating. AOOs are never defined as an action, not even as a non-action or miscellaneous action, unlike some other things you can do in combat.
On the other hand, the AOO rules are pretty clear about when you can or cannot make one. As for terminology, this is the best the rules give us:
These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
and
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
I'd pay special attention to "an attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round."
This would imply that it's a non action. It is, as noted, "a free attack" which appears to be its own thing.
In the end, since AOOs are well-defined otherwise, hopefully that doesn't cause a problem for anyone's games. It does mean it's not a good example of an action because it's not one -- it does look a lot like an immediate action, though, in fairness. It just gets exceptions to it. Not judging the poster who came up with that--I can see the logic that got you there.
The in-rules example of an immediate action, for future reference, is casting feather fall.
Good luck.
I'd pay special attention to "an attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round."
This isn't really all that special. Immediate actions interrupt the normal flow of things as well (even though not called out as such).
For example.
Player: I move down the hall.
GM: You get 10' and the floor drops out beneath you.
Player: I interrupt my "I'm falling to my death move action" and cast feather fall.
Readied actions also work the same way. They interrupt the current flow to apply an action. A readied action to attack anyone who moves out of a square you are threatening would be almost perfectly identical to an AoO (though a readied action for such could be used to attack someone who takes a 5' step as well).
Otherwise agreed though, RAW does not specify anything about an AoO being an action or a non-action. As I stated earlier in this thread it is more a hybrid of a immediate and free action then anything else. But again, there is no RAW on this. Neither common or uncommon wisdom makes an AoO an action or a non-action per RAW. RAI? Yes, I'd definitely call it an action. It's own special little action that we call an AoO :).
I'm just noting the way it's worded suggests it's outside the normal definition of "action."
Ultimately, I don't think it's all that important. Someone made a mild misinterpretation of the rules, worse things have happened. :) What an AOO does and what the actions do are all clearly defined, so all is well. (And yeah I think we more or less agree.)
Hustonj: Do you then recognize that you can only do attacks of opportunity on your own turn, forfeiting the use of any other standard or full-round action?
Do you recognize that you can not make iterative attacks, ever? As you don't have more than one standard action?
Do you recognize that the Rapid Shot feat does nothing at all?
It just makes sense that somebody who practiced how to draw weapons quickly (Quikdraw feat) would be be able to react fast enough to both draw a weapon and take an attack of opportunity.
Other than that, Quickdraw is great for rogues, ninjas, and assassins to pull out hidden weapons and attack in the same round.
Also great if you are disarmed or have your weapon sundered so you don't waste a move action.
An Attack of Opportunity is an attack.
An Attack is defined as a standard action.
Taking an Attack of Opportunity is taking a standard action, according to the definition of terms provided by the PRD.
Tell me again how the PRD does not say this?
...
Perhaps because not all "attacks" are "Attacks", if you know what I mean.
Are you now ignoring the quote Grick provided earlier from James Jacobs recognizing that an AoO is an action taken outside of your turn?
It's an action in that you're performing an act. This means something that prohibits you from acting (like the Dazed condition) means you can't make an AoO, even though an AoO doesn't have a game-defined action type (like free standard etc.)
You may EXPLICITLY take one or more Free Actions as part of performing another action.
You keep leaving off the part that makes you wrong.
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
It's not normal to take actions outside of your turn. So by doing so, you're not taking another action normally, and thus, you can't perform one or more free actions at that time.
Since this interpretation works within the rules and is common sense, and your interpretation breaks the game, it's fairly clear to everyone else which one is more correct.
An attack is explicitly identified as an action.
You're presumably referring to the attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action, and which can in no way be used during an attack of opportunity.
Vital Strike is used with the attack action. This is a specific type of standard action. Even though a full-attack can contain multiple attacks, it is not multiple attack actions, and thus cannot be used with Vital Strike.
Insisting that an AoO is a standard action is directly contrary to what James Jacobs said in the quote that you berated someone else for ignoring. "It's not a free or a standard or a full-round or an immediate or a swift action"
The rules make it clear how AOOs and other attacks work. This is getting to be an argument over semantics and needing to be right over anything that's actually helpful to understanding the rules. And it's derailing the OP's thread. Is it really that important?
Hustonj: Do you then recognize that you can only do attacks of opportunity on your own turn, forfeiting the use of any other standard or full-round action?
Do you recognize that you can not make iterative attacks, ever? As you don't have more than one standard action?
Do you recognize that the Rapid Shot feat does nothing at all?
The amount of effort you keep putting into ignoring and directing others to ignore the text of the rules so that you can try to act superior is outstanding.
The text specific to Attacks of Opportunity (that follows the definition I quoted in the previous post) tells you explicitly how, where, when, etc. you may perform an AoO.
Specific rules over-ride general rules. Kind of like the text on the rules for a Full Attack over-rides the rules for a generic Attack, even while being based on them. Right?
And the "Attack" subsection of the "Action" section is more specific than the event of an attack. Also, the AoO rules does not state you can break the normal limit of one standard action per turn. If you really pick and choose what you want to follow to you most beneficial, you can get it to allowing attacks of opportunity as a standard action taken on another's turn.
Also:
1. Where in the RAW does it state that specific rules overrides general rules?
2. Where does it state the Attacks of Opportunity subheader is more specific than the Attack subheader?
JJ isn't a developer and what he says isn't a ruling by any means. If you want to argue RAW with citations you need a dev like SKR or Jason Buhlman (sp?).Actually, EVERYTHING which is not inherently within the written rules can be used to address RAI, but only the written rules themselves can be used to address RAW.
If you disagree with the rules concept that an AoO is an Action, provide RAW saying that it is not.
Without RAW declaring an AoO as a non-action, I will hold that you actually doing something is inherently you taking an action. This is a complicated and difficult to understand concept, obviously.
Amusing, but not at all the point of what I was saying. I am disinterested in the argument, and I don't disagree with you.
I'm not addressing RAI or RAW, I was only pointing out that you can't argue RAW with citations from JJ because he doesn't make rulings. Citations from rulings from SKR and Jason are RAW.
To the OP: I like quickdraw as a shield using cleric. Sheathe weapon as a move, cast as standard, quickdraw weapon again. (I guess thinking about it now, I could drop the weapon, cast, then pick the weapon back up. Not sure if picking the weapon back up would provoke an AoO, though.)
RAW says (by transitive property) that an AoO is a Standard Action
This is where the error in your thinking is. An AoO is NOT a standard action. Standard action has a very specific, very narrow, very deliberate definition. Few terms in the game have such a specific meaning - even attack does not have such a specific and narrow meaning. Attack could mean, attack with a weapon, deal damage with a spell, supernatural ability, spell like ability, a combat manuever, etc. Some of those can be used in an AoO. Some cannot. e.g., you cannot cast a spell as part of an AoO. Yet if an attack is a standard action you should be able to because you can cast a spell as a standard action. Also note, the rules don't say an attack is a standard action, the rules say, as a standard action you may make an attack. Not all attacks are standard actions (again see full attack and AoO for clear examples). Not all standard actions are attacks (see numerous options in the table of standard actions).
If a attack is a standard action, and as you are saying, a full attack is also an attack, and is therefore a standard action, then you have a contradiction within the rules. A full attack is a full attack action. A attack that uses a standard action is a single attack, and could be called an attack action (though really the precise correct terminology is making an attack using your standard action). An AoO is a? we don't know. The rules don't say either directly or by extension, as it most certainly is not a standard action.
If an attack is an attack is an attack, then there would be no need to spell out differences between standard action attacks, full attacks, and AoO attacks. They are the same in that you roll a d20, compare it to your opponents AC/CMD as appropriate, and on success something happens. They are different in that one uses a standard action, one requires a full round action, and one is not defined. And they are different in when you are allowed to make use of that type of attack.
Low level reason for Quickdraw: Throwing weapons. Not ammunition, actual weapons such as daggers etc.
Now, the premise that you only get one attack until level 6 is flawed. Haste occurs at 5 (haste potions earlier). But even before that at level 1 I can make two attacks with a thrown weapon if I take Rapid Shot or TWF.
Rapid Shot+Daggers without Quickdraw: I draw a dagger and throw it. I have rapid shot but not quickdraw. Too bad, I can only draw one dagger at a time.
Rapid Shot+Daggers with Quickdraw: I draw a dagger and throw it. I draw another dagger and throw it. And now we have a level 1 use that benefits multiple attacks.
- Gauss
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
& to be more clear: yes, ready your action for when they're in reach after warning they should stay out of reach & your allowed to interrupt chain of initiative in time whenever you're r
& yes, some try to overrule that & then it's time for magic... where their reality becomes a nightmare maybe a place where they aren't sure anymore if their hunt was justified by all parts of them & they can't even trust their own minds anymore
glad a necromancer came to resurrect this thread 12 years after the conversation died.
Late entry to the oldest necro'd thread of the year contest, but a possible winner
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We ... have a contest?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We ... have a contest?
The onyx salesmen want you to think so.