|
A player of mine suggested that an AoO, being a "single melee attack" is classified as a standard action, and as such can be replaced with any move action. So instead of taking the AoO he could instead move away for the opponent that was trying to grapple him, and effectively move out of range. Actually.. he was playing a game of "knivsies" and really wanted to pick up coins from the table before the opponent grappled him.
Here is his argument:
The rules on the pathfinder srd (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html) pretty clearly state that:
1. “An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack” quoted from the Paizo URL listed above
2. A melee attack is a standard action (from Table: Actions in Combat at the same URL)
3. Under Action Types, the rules specifically state that “You can always take a move action in place of a standard action” (from the same URL)
Any thoughts on this ?
no, that is what readied actions are for...
Read up on "when can I take a move/standard action out-of-turn?"
Part 2 of his argument is a logical fallacy all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.
melee attack does not equal standard action, it is one of the options in standard action. For instance, when 2 weapon fighting, you get to make 2 melee attacks, this doesn't mean you are taking 2 standard actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: No. An attack of opportunity is not a standard action and thus you cannot replace it with a move action.
heck no, and you can't take any standard action which allows an attack either. (e.g. grapple, attack spells, etc)
you're allowed one melee attack roll, that's it, nothing else, it's just a melee attack roll, nothing else.
this isn't using any 'standard/move/swift' actions at all, it is entirely outside that paradigm/action economy.
the AoO and the 'standard/etc' action paradigms DO both allow attack rolls,
but that does not mean AoOs are equivalent to any standard/move/etc action.
the poodle analogy is very apt to show the logical failure your friend was making.
An AoO is most accurately described as a free action that may be taken outside your turn and is only available when provoked: you must be able to act to take them, and they are not part of the Standard/Move/Swift action economy.
Short answer: no.
It's not a standard action, it's an "attack action" - which grants you one free melee attack (or combat maneuver), and nothing else.
Clarification: combat maneuvers that can replace an attack action. Trip = yes, grapple = no.
An AoO is most accurately described as a free action that may be taken outside your turn and is only available when provoked: you must be able to act to take them, and they are not part of the Standard/Move/Swift action economy.
Short answer: no.
I fully agree...
That said the absurd portion of my brain just pictured a party with a panther style feat chain focused Evoker who runs circles around his allies to provoke non-lethal attacks of opportunity so he could then substitute blasting spells for his return AoOs. "Quick! Slap Merwin as he runs past so he can rain fire down upon our foes faster!"
An attack of opportunity is not a standard action or a full round action or a move action or a swift action or an immediate action or a free action. It's its own thing.
|
|
If anyone is interested in continuing the discussion her is my player's response...
" This means that you are saying that the AoO melee attack is actually a special type of non-substitutable standard action. That's a clear rule but it has a significant additional implication. It also means that you are inactivating another part of the SRD that says you can substitute an AoO melee attack for Combat Maneuvers (which are mostly standard actions). This pretty much proves that an AoO melee attack is a standard action that is substitutable ... obviously. So your rule of non substitution means that we can't use Combat Maneuvers for an AoO either. You can't have your non-substitution rule for AoO melee attacks in play without negating the combat maneuver substitution for AoO rule. Which is a pity -- and is what I meant about taking us down the path of less colorful melee rounds. It means that an AoO can only be used for hitting -- and nothing else. Kind of boring. Unfortunately, you can't (reasonably) permit the standard rule that allows substitution of the AoO melee attack by combat maneuvers because this rule proves that the AoO melee attack is a standard action just like any other melee attack, and therefore can be substituted by move-equivalent actions. If you permit AoO melee attacks to be substitutable as the standard actions that they actually are, then you open the door to the interpretation you seem to fear. Instead of striking their opponents, pretty soon every player character will be taking things out of their pockets whenever their opponents are distracted, oh no! Worse than that, you can't do something in-between ruling wise because then you will have a rule bug. For example, to persist with the position that AoO melee attacks can't be substituted for move equivalent events but then also allow them to substituted by the more complex combat maneuvers would create weird circumstances where I can drag an opponent for half my movement, or pull their pants down, during an AoO but I wouldn't be allowed to pick up a single gold piece from the ground, or take something out of my pocket instead. It's nonsense. The middle ground is a strange place in this case. The strict interpretation (AoO is only for a strike) can be made to work and is internally logical but is boring. The only thing that anyone can ever do in combat when their opponent becomes distracted is to hit them. Really? The way the rules seems to be written are actually pretty balanced for great play. In the event of an AoO, there are many balanced non-attack kind of things that one can do. None of them really change the tide of the battle as much as an outright attack would and all of them add color. I'm not sure what the problem is... your only expressed fear is that somehow one could use an AoO substitution to run away but you wouldn't be able to do anything more than what the movement rules already allow... so what is the problem?
Your player is using Fallacious logic.
The game allows for a special kind of Action called an Attack of Opportunity.
This action has a Caveat that it is normally an Attack, however you may substitute a combat maneuver.
That is all. Full stop.
There is nowhere that says or implies that an Attack of Opportunity is a standard action.
That means it is not. It is an Attack of Opportunity, which normally you are allowed one per round. There are feats and abilities that allow more, however that is what they do "Allow".
Logic has nothing to do with this. This is RAW.
If you want to houserule it you can do so, however if you do not want to do so, as you seem to not want to simply tell your player "No."
If he has enough of a problem with it he can not play any more, and if he is whiny as I interpreted his words to be, then tell him to either shape up or get out.
He does not get to dictate to you, unless he wants to and you want to let him, take over the GM role.
You as a group have decided that you are the GM, you make the calls.
Now if the rest of the table agrees with him perhaps it is house-rule time.
I keep coming back what you have presented for his statements. Personally I feel that he is being overly pushy and whiny, and trying to make a flap so as to get his way.
I would in your position simply email him back with the link I have provided and this explanation.
"Attacks of Opportunity are a separate mechanic. They are not and never were any kind of Standard action. You may during an attack of Opportunity make a Melee attack or a Combat Maneuver as allowed by the specific maneuver, or anything specifically allowed by your feats or abilities.
You may not treat it as a standard action, as it is not one. Period. If the group wants to talk about this we all can get together, before or after game to do so, but if you keep pushing me on this individually I warn you you are reducing the chance I will continue to run this game."
In short real world logic cannot be applied to most of the pathfinder mechanics.
I see this as two issues, both of them interpersonal, and be cloaked by a facade issue.
The Facade is the whole AoO = Standard Action argument your player is making.
The real issues are:
1.) You seem unsure of yourself, and seem to not want to stand firm or make decisions.
I would recommend making calls and sticking to them.
My recommended rule is that you will make your call and unless explicitly proven wrong by RAW text presented either before or after game your calls stand.
Now I also recommend discussion on any rules that make the game less fun for any member of the group, be it yourself or any player.
House rules are not bad they should simply be made with the intention of maximizing fun for all, codified, and recorded.
Also once you decide on a house rule, stick to what you all have agreed on and written down the exact same as what is written in the book.
2.) Your player seems pushy and whiny, and is very invested in "Real-World" logic.
He needs to not send you whining statements like what you have presented, as he is appearing to in my opinion trying to guilt and shout you down.
He needs to treat you politely and you should do the same.
He also needs to realize that there are several places where the rules of the Pathfinder game system do not and will not allow for logic, they simply do what they say and no more.
your player is failing to understand some distinctions relevant as game rules terms, although not so much in normal spoken english.
there is a list of specific actions in the game, and they have names to allow referring to these specific actions.
you can only take these on your turn, and they are limited per certain number of standard/move/swift actions per turn.
one of these is a standard action named 'attack'.
this 'attack' action is NOT identical to ANY OLD attack, or any old attack roll.
when an AoO, which isn't an action of the (standard/move/swift) type, allows a 'melee attack',
that is just that, a melee attack (i.e. attack roll), NOT THE SPECIFIC NAMED 'ATTACK ACTION'.
the entirety of this player's protestations are simply an continual bore-fest demonstrating their incapacity to understand that this is a game with discrete rules and terms, and invocation of a specific game term within the context of the game is invoking just that specific game term, irrespective of 'standard spoken english'.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Saying that an AoO can give you anything that costs a standard action or less because the attack it gives you normally costs a standard action...
...is like saying I can use my coupon for a free candy bar to buy anything in Wal-Mart worth a dollar or less because the candy bar the coupon gives me normally costs a dollar.
Everybody agrees that the "Attack" action (a Standard Action) is confusingly named. That's what it's named though.
You just have to be able to realize that some actions may have confusing names,
and that whether or not 'attack' or 'attack action' is written (melee/etc being modifiers of either)
is crucially important to determining what game function is actually being referred to in that case.
If you refuse to acknowledge that there may be confusingly named rules features which require precise attention be payed to the exact auxiliary wording employed ('action'), then ultimately you can't succesfully play this game as it's intended to be.
It is rather sad that this subject (distinguishing any attack from the attack action) still isn't in the official FAQ.
It was apparently worth the time of the developers to comment on it in the forums shortly after PRPG was published,
but it has never been translated over to the official FAQ which is much more 'visible' for most players.
I have no justification for that state of affairs, but that is what we have.
That doesn't change how the rules work, which work the exact same whether or not you have the developer clarification.
It is an aggressive nonaction. That is how it was in 3.5. The wording has no changed since then.
As noted in Part One, a nonaction is something that effectively takes you no time at all, but still requires some attention or effort. The rules don't go into any detail about the kinds of nonactions in the game, but for our purposes they fall into three categories:Aggressive Nonactions: There's only one activity that falls into this category: the attack of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action. In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
well, i don't think the 'similar to the attack action' bit would really help the OP's player, but yeah, nothing changed from 3.5>PRPG here, even if now PRPG has other rules which reference 'attack action' specifically, i.e. vs. 'attack', period. not that the RAW is ENTIRELY coherent in this (check out what goes under the attack action heading... some of that is worded to apply to every attack, but not everything), but there is a basic distinction here that any player should/needs to be aware of. it's the basis for the paizo forum posts on attack action/vital strike.
|
|
I want to thank everyone who took the time to post a response to my thread. My initial ruling on this at the table was "No F-ing Way!", although I did give the guy a chance to make his case and spent some time re-reading the appropriate sections of the SRD, to be fair. But as has been mentioned here over and over, it doesn't make sense. To be even MORE fair, and as a test of whether maybe I was not being reasonable, I posted it here to see what the PRPG Community thought, especially after my player continued to berate and bombard me with email arguments ... yes, and Covent characterized my player best. So I think it is safe to say, looking at the responses here that I am being fair and reasonable in my interpretation of the RAW, as they pertain to AoO, and have gone above and beyond to confirm this. You all basically confirmed the intent of the RAW.. but I like the way Kazaan summarized it, including the (strike with rule book) :) and have posted this in our campaign OneNote notebook along with a link to this thread for future reference. Game On!