Moving to provoke AoO before casting


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Curious to get some feedback on a situation that arose during my last session. The caster choose to move away from melee as a move action in order to provoke AoO from the threatening creatures. He then finished his move action by returned to the original square where he started his turn. He then used his standard action to cast color spray. The rational behind his move was he didn't mind risking the chance of taking dmg from the AoO in order to avoid having to cast defensively or risking the chance of taking dmg from the AoO provoked from casting and risk failing the resulting concentration check.

My understanding is that he would not have to make a concentration check as the damage did not occur during the casting of the spell.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html#_injury-while-casting

He would also not have to cast defensively as the creatures had used their AoO during his move and did no possess Combat Reflexes.

My question is: is there anything in RAW that would specifically disallow this? Is it effectively within RAW to allow a caster to burn his move action and take AoO in order to guarantee he can cast his spell without a chance of failure (assume he lives thru the AoO)?

FWIW, He actually did this same move twice. The second time, the creature in melee decline to use AoO when he used his move action, thus keeping it available for use if he reentered melee and attempted to cast.


There's nothing to stop him from doing it by RAW, though he really would be better off just using combat casting to not provoke the attack in the first place. Assuming he was fairly likely to succeed at the check of course.


It's a clever move that indeed works, at the cost of some HP. Just throw a creature with combat reflexes every now and then if you want him to think twice before using the same trick every combat.

EDIT: ...and often a 5 foot step or better party positioning circumvents this to begin with. No matter what, I don't see this as a game-breaking strategy. Just a last-ditch method that helps you maybe hopefully guarantee a casting of a spell.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Seems like a good tactic on the casters part.

Also good observations by the creature to prevent the same tactic being used again.

This is also one of the many situations combat reflexes is amazing.


Was the caster surrounded on three sides? how many enemies were threatening him? Did they have reach weapons?

I'm asking this to see why the caster didn't or couldn't safely 5ft step away before casting. I am by no means saying what he did was stupid, I'm just hoping he was indeed unable to safely 5ft step before trying to move and get beat up lol


RAW legal, although a bit difficult to visualise. Grab or combat reflexes both hard counter this so it's not exactly a gamebreaking tactic.

The real question is, why didn't he just 5-foot step? Did he need to be in that square to hit all the monsters with his colour spray?


I won't disagree that is was a clever tactic, but mostly clever in manipulating game mechanics which isn't really the clever I'm looking to encourage. :P

@MatrixDragon: Unless I'm missing something, a defensive casting check is almost always a bad idea. Even with Defensive Casting, its rare that a cast has more than a 40% chance of success, no?

@Drakkiel/Blakmane: It was a situation where the were battling in a choke, and enemy reinforcements arrived from behind, so they were basically surrounded. Any 5ft step would have put him in a threatened square from other enemies. His current space was the best place for his cone AoE to hit the most enemies and he would have risked AoO from any space he could 5ft to.

Appreciate the feedback. I'm gathering that its a legit tactic, but like Blakmane said very difficult to visualize as making any amount of sense.


Quote:
My question is: is there anything in RAW that would specifically disallow this? Is it effectively within RAW to allow a caster to burn his move action and take AoO in order to guarantee he can cast his spell without a chance of failure (assume he lives thru the AoO)?

I would not consider this 'clever use of game mechanics'.

The enemies could have alternatively not have taken the AOO attack and they could have waited for a better opportunity, depending on the intelligence of the enemies. Mindless skeleton? Sure let it always work. Smart group of bandits? Maybe not.

Looks fine in my book, almost like feinting.

Player - I move around the enemies in a circle

DM - Alright your good. Now your standard action?

Very easy to counter this tatic with one of your own.


Hawktitan wrote:
The enemies could have alternatively not have taken the AOO attack and they could have waited for a better opporunity, depending on the intelligence of the enemies. Mindless skeleton? Sure let it always work. Smart group of bandits? Maybe not.

This. Characters aren't required to take AoOs when they are provoked. The first time in an encounter he does this, sure, they're overeager and take the swing. If he tries it again and the enemy is halfway intelligent, they let him step away, waiting to smack him if he casts.


Thanks for clearing the situation up :)...and as for moving out and then back to the same square...I cannot find anything about being able (or not being able) to move one way then turn around and move back. That I say would be up to your GM as to whether he was going to allow that as one move action. Depending on your GM that's very important to that situation.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It might work on my intelligent enemies the first time, but the second time it might not. He also risks being in trouble against anyone with Combat Reflexes.

Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.

Liberty's Edge

It's legit, with the risk of a second AoO from Combat Reflexes. If their reinforcements arriving that would threaten were he to step back, it sounds like he must also provoke an AoO from one or more defenders when he left the square he could have stepped to.

As far as discouraging rule based tactics, it's pretty much impossible to stop, and probably not a good idea in the long run. These sort of niche tactics encourage a thorough understanding of the rules, which makes the game run smoother and allows getting in more gaming. There are enough disincentives to do this in the long run that it's unlikely to be more than a novelty. Readying to cast if casting, combat reflexes, or special attacks that do more than just damage come to mind.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if it's such an abuse either. It's basically a feint to avoid the disruption in concentration once casting begins, and I can definitely picture a wizard dodging out of the way once or twice before starting his/her spellcasting in earnest.

If it makes you feel better, add in a new option for Bluff as a feat:

Provoke: Sometimes, it is advantageous to make your enemy attack on your terms rather than on his. As a move action, make a Bluff check opposed by an opponent's Sense Motive check. If you succeed, you provoke an attack of opportunity from that opponent, and he must take this attack if able. Whether or not he succeeds in hitting you, he may make no more attacks of opportunity against you this round.


from time to time use that AoO to trip the wizard, or if the wizard s fliying to sunder the spell component pouch.


During the session I would congratulate the player for their cleverness and allow it for that encounter but point out it is a bit cheesy and you will consider a ruling after the sesion.

Given you're asking after the session I would warn them that as it is cheesy and going against the spirit of the rules that you will counter it by having opponents, recognsing a spell is about to be cast prevent it by attempting to sunder their component pouch and/or trip them. But that you won't routinely enact that tactic unless he insists on using the tactic.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

We take this a step further in our group. For example last session we had a party member get killed. Our cleric had Breath of Life prepared, but was totally unarmored and couldn't take the AOO. So, my tanked up Paladin proceeded to waltz through the battlefield and "soak" a couple AOOs, this allowing the cleric to step in and get his clericy business done. It's a game mechanic, it was highly possible the BBEG had Combat Reflexes, but we did what we could, and in the end we triumphed.

I'm not remotely concerned that we meta gamed the situation.


FootInFace wrote:
@MatrixDragon: Unless I'm missing something, a defensive casting check is almost always a bad idea. Even with Defensive Casting, its rare that a cast has more than a 40% chance of success, no?

Er, what? What level are you talking about? Combat Casting makes casting defensively a sure thing pretty quickly.

It's worst at level 1 (when the DC is 17, and you only have 1+stat to the roll), but with combat casting and an 18 casting stat, you're still looking at a +9 which gives you a 65% success rate.

But there's no way you could be level 1--a level 1 character risking an AoO is suicidal.

Things just get easier and easier as you level, since your attributes and caster level increase faster than the DC--and you can always just cast a lower level spell to make it easy.


mplindustries wrote:

Er, what? What level are you talking about? Combat Casting makes casting defensively a sure thing pretty quickly.

The PC in question is lvl 2. They are investigating the Caves of Chaos (originally from Keep on the Borderlands, but I'm using the D&D Next rewrite as reference), specifically the Goblin Caves (Area D). The caster didn't take Combat Casting for whatever reason, so his DC 17 defensive casting check would have given him a 50% chance of failure.

The majority voice here is probably correct suggesting that its not a game-breaking mechanic. My main concern was the 'cheese factor' that Hugo referred to, but I suppose it's really nothing to get all that worried about...especially since it seems to be fully supported by RAW.


Mergy wrote:


Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.

Can you do that? I was under the impression AoOs had to be regular attacks.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Mergy wrote:


Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.
Can you do that? I was under the impression AoOs had to be regular attacks.

yes he can do that. You can trip, sunder, disarm in a AoO, basically everything that replaces normal attacks (for the same reason overrun, bull rush, and grapple normally can not be done in an AoO)


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Mergy wrote:


Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.
Can you do that? I was under the impression AoOs had to be regular attacks.

Any of the combat maneuvers that have the language "in place of a melee attack" can be done instead of an AoO.


You could visualise it as the wizard jumping back away from an enemy swing (potentially getting hit as he goes) and then leaping forward into the opening, casting his spell.

Trip would really mess this up anyway, that's a great point.

Foot in face: if every square was threatened, does that mean he provoked two attacks of opportunity in order to move and then move back? Or was it just one guy with 10ft reach who could hit him regardless.


While I have never chosen to return to my starting square, accepting the AoO to then be certain a spell goes off has been somewhat common for me. The spray he was using has a 15' cone, so it isn't all the time that he will need to be that close to his opponent. He probably won't try to put himself in this position for long as a couple of solid hits will likely drop a wizard. This should be more of an "in a pinch" than a "regular" strategy.


For what its worth, I have never seen a caster "cast defensively". I have seen them have to make checks due to damage or distraction however, I have yet to seen a caster say, "I cast (insert spell here) defensively."

Of course I don't see many casters standing in melee range of opponents either. YMMV.

+J


FootInFace wrote:
Curious to get some feedback on a situation that arose during my last session.

Around here we used to call that the 'poor man's concentration'.

And when another would provoke from many to let others get around it was 'plowing'.

Nothing wrong with it at all,

James

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As stated by everyone else, perfectly legal by RaW.

Some say "cheesy", but I ask why?

In a previous game (3.5), a swashbuckler with mobility provoked AoO's consistently to allow healer's to get the fighters back up and running without having to worry about casting defensively. A gnoll ranger with combat reflexes tore him up one time but he persisted with doing it anyway. This depth of understanding of tactics should be encouraged as it raises everyone's awareness of the rules and makes things go faster.

In PFS, my monk character will provoke AoO's by moving through threatened areas and then using "disarm" to take the fighter's weapon away. A locked gauntlet, combat reflexes or a big hit on the AoO could stop me on that attempt, but it's a momentum shifter if it works.

These examples were not spellcasters but the principles are the same. It would be wiser to take combat casting, etc. But if some twist of fate leaves the "move and move back" as a viable option, let the dice speak!

Risk is on par with reward. No cheese here.

Andy


Seems somewhat unnecessary unless the opponents had that Step Up feat. Just 5 foot step back and cast.

Agree with the above posters that the AOO could be to grapple or trip - much worse for the mage.

Question for the peanut gallery - didn't Combat Reflexes used to state that you could only make one AOO per round on a particular enemy? It doesn't appear to state that anymore, but I thought it used to in 3.5. Or am I thinking Dark Heresy or some other game?

Dark Archive

Beej67: Even with Combat Reflexes, you can only make one attack of opportunity per provoking action. A single move action is a single provoking action, even if I run circles around you or go back and forth three times. That could be what you were remembering.


Well since a 5 foot step was not possible, and casting defensively in this case was a 50/50 chance, it seems like the player made the best of a difficult situation. He basically gambled and won by provoking an AOO that would not interfere with his casting and hoping his opponent took the bate and did not have Combat Reflexes. Basically he got the enemy to commit himself to an attack that left him open to return fire, and even if the attack hit it was worth the risk to incapacitate multiple enemies.

Whether or not an enemy should fall for this could be handled in two ways. First, you could have the player make a bluff check opposed to the opponents sense motive and if the bluff succeeds he fools the opponent into taking the bait, but if it fails the opponent senses something might be wrong and doesn't commit. The player might not even need to know about the rolls, made by the DM in secret. The other way to do it would be to consider the opponents Wisdom or Intelligence score and if it's above a certain number that you feel is reasonable, the opponent doesn't fall for it.

Of course, after the first go, even if it succeeds, the same opponents are not likely to fall for it a second time.

Personally I would reward the player for their outside-the-box thinking.


Blakmane wrote:
Foot in face: if every square was threatened, does that mean he provoked two attacks of opportunity in order to move and then move back? Or was it just one guy with 10ft reach who could hit him regardless.

Yeah, he actually provoked AoO from two goblins with his move.

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
Some say "cheesy", but I ask why?

I can definitely get on board with the idea of provoking from enemies in order to allow others free reign to do their business. What rubbed me the wrong way was it seemed odd to be able to take dmg from an attack and still cast during *that same round* without having to make a concentration check since the dmg would occur during the move action. Perhaps I was trying to compartmentalize the caster's round of actions rather than thinking about his turn as just his set of actions during the entire combat round as a whole...meaning dmg from an AoO during his move action shouldn't be thought of any differently than dmg dealt during any enemy action (if that makes any sense).

Aldarionn wrote:
It seems like the player made the best of a difficult situation. He basically gambled and won by provoking an AOO that would not interfere with his casting and hoping his opponent took the bate and did not have Combat Reflexes. Basically he got the enemy to commit himself to an attack that left him open to return fire, and even if the attack hit it was worth the risk to incapacitate multiple enemies.

Putting it in this light is probably the way I should have been looking at it to begin with. It was basically the idea of him taking dmg during his turn yet still being able to cast w/o a concentration check that I had trouble rationalizing. Your comment helps puts it into a context that makes more sense to me.

@mergy: I admire your original suggestion about using a combat maneuver (trip, sunder) for the AoO. Like Arbane, I also was also under the impression that you could only make a standard attack when making an AoO (Confusion I can perhaps attribute to my year or so playing 4E.)

Silver Crusade

FootInFace wrote:
I can definitely get on board with the idea of provoking from enemies in order to allow others free reign to do their business. What rubbed me the wrong way was it seemed odd to be able to take dmg from an attack and still cast during *that same round* without having to make a concentration check since the dmg would occur during the move action. Perhaps I was trying to compartmentalize the caster's round of actions rather than thinking about his turn as just his set of actions during the entire combat round as a whole...meaning dmg from an AoO during his move action shouldn't be thought of any differently than dmg dealt during any enemy action (if that makes any sense).

I see the distinction you're making but RaW is clear. The book states that the damage must be taken during the act of casting the spell. Regardless, it's the gamble that the enemy does not have combat reflexes or another ability to offset his actions that clinches it for me. But I was looking at it in terms of game balance (risk vs. reward), not the sum total of actions and consequences of the round.

Andy


FootInFace wrote:
What rubbed me the wrong way was it seemed odd to be able to take dmg from an attack and still cast during *that same round* without having to make a concentration check since the dmg would occur during the move action.

There are types of damage that are counted as 'continuous' and thus would apply. Perhaps seeing that distinction will help you in this.

There are many times where we want to impose a viewpoint on what the rules model. Many times this can be an aid to explain things, but sometimes it can fly in the face of other facets of the game.

Here you want to diverge yourself from things that deal continuous damage. For example: acid arrow. It deals less damage, but that damage is continuous. Its a tradeoff for doing what you want all damage to do, and should not get sidelined for it.

-James

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Seems super meta-gamey to me and I would hope it was performed with at least some chagrin on his part since it's a maneuver that specifically extorts game mechanics in a way that just doesn't make sense from any immersion perspective.
It does work, but....
I'm just happy to be blessed with fellow players who are pretty good about not taking meta-game style actions, particualry ones that don't make sense from their characters perspective. I'm thinking that wizards generally don't have information in the books they're making their knowledge checks based on that tells them goblins are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes and probably can't swing to take advantage of an opening more than once every 6 seconds.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
FootInFace wrote:
@mergy: I admire your original suggestion about using a combat maneuver (trip, sunder) for the AoO. Like Arbane, I also was also under the impression that you could only make a standard attack when making an AoO.

Just to complicate things further: tripping as an AoO will in turn provoke an AoO in response unless you have the Improved Trip ability. So if that spellcaster is holding a dagger he gets a chance to poke you with it before getting round to casting the spell. Furthermore, if your trip succeeds there's another feat (Vicious Stomp) that lets you take another AoO (assuming Combat Reflexes) as the spellcaster falls prone, so you don't have to give up a chance of damage by making a trip attempt.

This is not only taking two AoOs against the same opponent during a round; it is taking two separate attacks during the same chain of actions. But the two provoking actions (moving away and falling prone) are separate, so this is all perfectly legal. And, as has been mentioned, the act of casting could itself provoke yet another AoO.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

JohnF wrote:
FootInFace wrote:
@mergy: I admire your original suggestion about using a combat maneuver (trip, sunder) for the AoO. Like Arbane, I also was also under the impression that you could only make a standard attack when making an AoO.

Just to complicate things further: tripping as an AoO will in turn provoke an AoO in response unless you have the Improved Trip ability. So if that spellcaster is holding a dagger he gets a chance to poke you with it before getting round to casting the spell. Furthermore, if your trip succeeds there's another feat (Vicious Stomp) that lets you take another AoO (assuming Combat Reflexes) as the spellcaster falls prone, so you don't have to give up a chance of damage by making a trip attempt.

This is not only taking two AoOs against the same opponent during a round; it is taking two separate attacks during the same chain of actions. But the two provoking actions (moving away and falling prone) are separate, so this is all perfectly legal. And, as has been mentioned, the act of casting could itself provoke yet another AoO.

I generally don't like gaming against my players, but I have to be honest, a character using loopholes like this consistently would probably make me inclined to drop some goblin monks with the above-mentioned feats into a few encounters until he came up with something a bit less meta-gamey to handle these. Like just making his concentration checks, and picking up Combat Casting if he's concerned about his ability to do so.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wow. I'm actually reading an honest claim that trying to get an enemy to attack so that you can exploit an opening during the subsequent backswing/follow-through is "metagamey".

Dark Archive

Jiggy, didn't you know that knowing and using the rules to play the game is metagaming?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Intentionally provoking an AoO by moving so they can't take it during your casting action because you "the player" know that the monsters are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes is very "meta-gamey".


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

We take this a step further in our group. For example last session we had a party member get killed. Our cleric had Breath of Life prepared, but was totally unarmored and couldn't take the AOO. So, my tanked up Paladin proceeded to waltz through the battlefield and "soak" a couple AOOs, this allowing the cleric to step in and get his clericy business done. It's a game mechanic, it was highly possible the BBEG had Combat Reflexes, but we did what we could, and in the end we triumphed.

I'm not remotely concerned that we meta gamed the situation.

So what you're saying is, the Paladin selflessly threw himself at the enemies with no regard for his own life, distracted them and took the brunt of their blows for a minute so his unarmored pal could restore a downed companion under cover of the flamboyant Paladin's self sacrifice?

No, nobody would ever draw the enemy's fire while someone else dragged a wounded ally to safety in the real world, it's totally cheesy game mechanicy. </sarcasm>

Sounds like a perfectly acceptable tactic, both real world and game mechanic wise.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Chort wrote:

It's a clever move that indeed works, at the cost of some HP. Just throw a creature with combat reflexes every now and then if you want him to think twice before using the same trick every combat.

It's a tactic that will quite likely get the caster killed or severely injured if he relies on it too much. In a recent module one attack took 48 of my 51 hit points. So a caster who's going to deliberately open themselves up to attack better hope for two things.

1. The attack doesn't make you face plant.

2. That you don't find out the hard way that the attacker has Combat Reflexes or any other similar ability.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

mdt wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

We take this a step further in our group. For example last session we had a party member get killed. Our cleric had Breath of Life prepared, but was totally unarmored and couldn't take the AOO. So, my tanked up Paladin proceeded to waltz through the battlefield and "soak" a couple AOOs, this allowing the cleric to step in and get his clericy business done. It's a game mechanic, it was highly possible the BBEG had Combat Reflexes, but we did what we could, and in the end we triumphed.

I'm not remotely concerned that we meta gamed the situation.

So what you're saying is, the Paladin selflessly threw himself at the enemies with no regard for his own life, distracted them and took the brunt of their blows for a minute so his unarmored pal could restore a downed companion under cover of the flamboyant Paladin's self sacrifice?

No, nobody would ever draw the enemy's fire while someone else dragged a wounded ally to safety in the real world, it's totally cheesy game mechanicy. </sarcasm>

Sounds like a perfectly acceptable tactic, both real world and game mechanic wise.

And I think this is a little different. Having the party tank essentially "elbow" an opening through the enemy lines with the cleric following behind is, to me, something on an entirely different level than a low level wizard moving to provoke AoO's so they'll be "used up" when when he throws a spell right afterwards.


I don't see what's wrong with it. Unless under certain circumstances (as mentioned previously), a 5 foot step will be a better idea.

In my opinion:
Instead of moving in circles, I'd "cast" a spell (move action to fake "somatic" components, free action to fake "verbal" components. Both things up to GM fiat, you are just moving your arms instead of your feet...), provoke, and then cast my real spell... May also mix up the order so they have to keep guessing. I would rule that they would need spellcraft to figure out it's not an actual spell (the DC possibly being a bluff check or something), otherwise if the GM is specifically doing an AOO when I cast the actual spell and the creature would have NO idea what is and isn't a spell, then THAT'S meta-gaming.

All in all, a good strategy. I'd allow it... But it should be a last resort. You shouldn't need to use it every combat... Unless you are constantly surrounded, then in that case, you need to rethink your strategy as a wizard because you just don't have the HP for it. You are a wizard, not a fighter. AoOs can always crit, and nothing sucks like a 3d12+(Insert high strength, power attack, and other bonuses times 3) to the squishy wizard, and being out of the fight... Possibly permanently.

EDIT: Also, what's stopping a wizard from doing a knowledge (something) on a target to see if they have combat reflexes? I would say it's in subtlety ("hm, that guy seems to be a bit quick to strike others.)


Ssalarn wrote:


And I think this is a little different. Having the party tank essentially "elbow" an opening through the enemy lines with the cleric following behind is, to me, something on an entirely different level than a low level wizard moving to provoke AoO's so they'll be "used up" when when he throws a spell right afterwards.

Not really, it's the difference between fencing at a tournament, and fighting a duel to the death.

When you're fighting in a tournament, a touch is a touch. When you're fighting to the death, a touch is just a wound, whereas a blade to the throat is a death.

Someone who understands a duel understands that sacrificing an arm hit can be a good tactic to get that blade into the opponent's ribcage.

The problem of course, is that the opponent may get an artery instead while you miss, so it's a risky tactic.


Mergy wrote:

It might work on my intelligent enemies the first time, but the second time it might not. He also risks being in trouble against anyone with Combat Reflexes.

Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.

That's actually better for the wizard - the AoO is used up, but he takes no damage.

Also, if you don't want players doing "mechanical" things, then don't roll for initiative.

Dark Archive

Funky Badger wrote:
Mergy wrote:

It might work on my intelligent enemies the first time, but the second time it might not. He also risks being in trouble against anyone with Combat Reflexes.

Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.

That's actually better for the wizard - the AoO is used up, but he takes no damage.

Also, if you don't want players doing "mechanical" things, then don't roll for initiative.

Not taking an attack of opportunity does not use up your attack of opportunity.


I've used this tactic. Works good, until the attack happens to crit you with a bane weapon with a X3 modifier and kills you outright...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Intentionally provoking an AoO by moving so they can't take it during your casting action because you "the player" know that the monsters are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes is very "meta-gamey".

No, you just have a very narrow mind when it comes to what is player knowledge and what is character knowledge. The character had all of the information available to him to make a judgement call.

Ranik the Wizard has a limitation that he can only make a single attack of opportunity in a given round unless he specially trains to improve his reflexes. The abstraction of that is "Your character must take Combat Reflexes to make multiple AOO's in a round." That's not player knowledge, that's character knowledge. Now, assuming Ranik has basic human level intelligence (pretty safe bet since Ranik is a Wizard), he would know that Goblins threatening his position are likely to be bound by the same restrictions. He knows that if he casts a spell, he will leave himself open to retaliation unless he casts on the defensive, but doing that gives him a good chance of failing to cast at all, so Ranik chooses to gamble. He assumes the Goblins are not gifted with unnaturally swift reflexes (and potentially confirms this with a knowledge check), and so provides the Golbins with an opening to attack him as he moves around them. If the Goblins take it, Ranik will absorb the blow as best he can and hope it's not too telling, then cast the spell while the Goblins are recovering from making the attack. After the Goblins attack him, Ranik is injured but alive, and fires off Color Spray from his new position catching several of the beasts in the blast, incapacitating them and allowing his friends to mop them up on the following round.

How is any of that "Metagaming"? The rules are an abstraction of what your character can actually do. Your character knows his limits, and knows which of those limits apply in the majority of cases. If the character is a risk taker, he might test the limits of others in the hopes that he can come out on top, and achieve a reward that was worth the risk.


Ssalarn wrote:
Intentionally provoking an AoO by moving so they can't take it during your casting action because you "the player" know that the monsters are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes is very "meta-gamey".

I disagree. I can entirely picture something like:

-Enemy is up in caster's face.
-Caster fakes them out by turning to move away, takes a strike to the back, then immediately turns back to where he was.
-Enemy is too slow to respond to the 'feint' as it were (unless they have combat reflexes), and caster is free to get their spell off before the opponent recovers.

Clever, both in character and out of character. Metagamey, I don't think so.

Just my opinion of course, but it seems perfectly fitting to me.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Marthian wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with it. Unless under certain circumstances (as mentioned previously), a 5 foot step will be a better idea.

In my opinion:
Instead of moving in circles, I'd "cast" a spell (move action to fake "somatic" components, free action to fake "verbal" components. Both things up to GM fiat, you are just moving your arms instead of your feet...), provoke, and then cast my real spell...

This would be what the "Bluff" skill is for.

Marthian wrote:

EDIT: Also, what's stopping a wizard from doing a knowledge (something) on a target to see if they have combat reflexes? I would say it's in subtlety ("hm, that guy seems to be a bit quick to strike others.)

This would come closer to removing the metagame aspect from the maneuver. Knowing that a given critter is generally slower or quicker on the follow-through makes a difference. This would only apply to creatures who commonly have Combat Reflexes though. It wouldn't tell you anything about a goblin monk who happened to pick it up with class levels since Knowledge checks are based on what you know from study, not on observing something in combat.

mdt wrote:

Not really, it's the difference between fencing at a tournament, and fighting a duel to the death.

When you're fighting in a tournament, a touch is a touch. When you're fighting to the death, a touch is just a wound, whereas a blade to the throat is a death.

Someone who understands a duel understands that sacrificing an arm hit can be a good tactic to get that blade into the opponent's ribcage.

The problem of course, is that the opponent may get an artery instead while you miss, so it's a risky tactic.

And maybe if we weren't talking about a low level wizard this would apply. But a character with virtually no combat training hopping in and out of combat so he can provoke then and not when he casts his spell is metagaming. That just isn't knowledge his character could have. It's nonsensical from a character perspective that he'd choose to get knifed for hopping in a circle so that he doesn't get knifed when he casts a spell, especially when wizards have a built-in mechanic for casting spells without provoking via the concentration.

I'm not saying that you can't do it, or even that there isn't a way to try and justify it. But in the situation described by the OP, the player is meta-gaming. Maybe he does it in a way that manages to avoid breaking immersion, providing an explanation like the one Jiggy did above. It doesn't change the fact that he's using knowledge his player couldn't possibly have to game the system.


Mergy wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Mergy wrote:

It might work on my intelligent enemies the first time, but the second time it might not. He also risks being in trouble against anyone with Combat Reflexes.

Also, consider tripping as an attack of opportunity. They never expect that.

That's actually better for the wizard - the AoO is used up, but he takes no damage.

Also, if you don't want players doing "mechanical" things, then don't roll for initiative.

Not taking an attack of opportunity does not use up your attack of opportunity.

You mentioned tripping as an AoO. That works better for the wizard as he takes no AoO.

I think its sound for players to assume baddies don't have Combat Reflexes as by far the majority don't...

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Moving to provoke AoO before casting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.