| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, let's put it a bit more real. The wolf moves through a threatened square to move into another threatened square of the same creature (trying to get a flank position +2 bonus). The creature tries to trip the wolf for his AoO without having the Improved Trip feat. Because the creature lacks the Improved Trip feat, this also provokes an AoO, so the wolf then bites (which has the trip feature as a free action). Yes, this all would "fire" at the very first square, so the wolf's bite would go off, but it wouldn't get the +2 flank bonus because all this occurs in the first threatened square, not the second square with the flank bonus. So, let's assume the wolf hits and trips the creature. The creature then goes prone, attempting to trip the wolf while prone and fails. Then the wolf moves into the square with the flanking position bonus.At least, that's how I think it would get resolved. I've seen arguments on the forums about provokes that provoke, that provoke, ad infinitum. I think when that happens, I'd just rule the AoOs cancel each other out and move on with the game. It's such a rare situation that it's not worth getting an official ruling.
Flanking has nothing to do with the situation at hand, so don't add it in as it adds nothing to the discussion.
Cancelling the AoO's out is not how the rules work - you are free to do so if that's what you really want to do, but in the situation, both characters get their AoO, and they are appropriately resolved.
Aside from all that though you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The argument is, and by purist RAW I'd agree with, is that normally during an AoO it is not the wolves turn, so it cannot use the free action of trip associated with its bite attack. In this scenario though it IS the wolves turn, so it can use the free action. So what does all that mean? It places in my mind what the RAI should be - that it doesn't matter whether it is the wolves turn or not, it gets the free trip attempt if it successfully bites.
RAW can be an interesting thing to discuss, but I found no value in RAW for the sake of RAW. The only value to discussing RAW, IMO, is to determine RAI. Which interestingly enough there are two types of questions on these boards.
1) A straight forward question with a straight forward RAW (and RAI) answer. These are very short discussions with a question and a few responses.
2) A corner case question that RAW doesn't specifically cover (such as this thread). These result in long threads with pulling searching the RAW text for support of their viewpoints of their RAI.
Please link where it says you must take a free action only on your turn. When you read the Free Action description from the PRD, it says no such thing. It seems that unless you have a link to the rulebook stating that a free action must be taken on your turn, you are assuming. Most actions occur on your turn, and free actions are done with normal actions, so obviously the vast majority of free actions occur on your turn. But, there is no stated restriction that a free action must occur on your turn. The restriction is that it accompany a normal action.
So, a normal action can be a melee attack. A melee attack is part of an Attack of Opportunity. So, please, provide your link that a free action must be done on your turn only.
Furthermore, to the post about pointing out feats that allow you to take free actions with a bow to do an AoO. The feat doesn't allow the free action, it allows the AoO. Because it allows the AoO, and the only way to attack with a bow using an AoO is to also draw the arrow, which is a free action. So, if the feat allowing an AoO from a bow required you to hit the creature with a melee attack with your bow (like swinging the actual bow), then you might imply you can't draw an arrow and shoot it in an AoO. But, that's not the case, you actually shoot the creature as an AoO, so you have to draw an arrow, which is a free action, which of course doesn't happen on your turn. Another way to think about it is the feat would say "You can make an AoO with your bow ONLY if you have an arrow already drawn and ready." But of course, it doesn't say that.
The reason it doesn't say that is because there is nowhere stated that free actions must occur on your turn. The only restriction is that it happens with a normal action. Stop reading stuff that isn't there.
I guess you let people in your games with the Dead or Dying condition still run around and make attacks, cast spells, all that fun stuff, because it doesn't say they can't take actions or that they're...you know...dead, or bleeding out like a heart ripped from their chest?
Things don't have to come out and explicitly state whether this or that is allowed, you should be able to gather information through context and intent; I derived the general "You can't take a Free Action outside your turn" ruling from at least two sets of subject material: Speaking under the Free Action table/section, and Two-Handed Martial Shenanigans.
By your inane ruling of "It doesn't say you can't," I can have Martials wielding Two-Handed Weapons take advantage of the Crane Wing and Crane Riposte feats by making full attacks with their weapons, have an enemy make full attacks against them (and when an enemy comes close to hitting them), get deflected by that Martial, and then get hit again with that Two-Handed Weapon. It's shenanigans to say the least, if not outright munchkinism, something that was obviously not intended by the Devs.
In addition, why does the Speaking action have the "even if it isn't your turn" clause, if you can take any Free Action outside your turn? Also, what about dropping weapons, going to the ground (or crouching), or ceasing concentration with a casted spell?
And somebody else brought up Readying Actions:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.
On what premise do I need or have to ready a Free Action when I can simply take the Free Action when I need to take it? I don't need to waste a Standard Action for a Free Action that I can already do outside my turn, whenever I want. Unless maybe...JUST MAYBE...Free Actions aren't designed to be taken outside your turn unless it's specified?
If you're allowing it in your games, then fine, they're your games, you run them how you want. But it's not the RAW, and it's most certainly not RAI.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hyperbole, strawman strawman strawman hyperbole. Insinuation insinuation hyperbole. Strawman insult hyperbole.
Dude... chill out.
If you don't understand other people's opinion, ask for clarification. If you do understand it then don't be so disingenuous, it doesn't add anything to your argument, and makes you look like a tool.
Free actions. They take almost no time or energy. There is no official limit to the number you can perform, however GMs have final say. They can either be independent actions unto themselves, or they can be a part of another action.
The independent free action, like most stand alone actions, can only be done on your turn.
Free actions which are a part of another action can be performed whenever that other action is performed.
That is the position that you are arguing against. Actually argue against that.
And seriously, relax a little.
Dude... chill out.
If you don't understand other people's opinion, ask for clarification. If you do understand it then don't be so disingenuous, it doesn't add anything to your argument, and makes you look like a tool.
Free actions. They take almost no time or energy. There is no official limit to the number you can perform, however GMs have final say. They can either be independent actions unto themselves, or they can be a part of another action.
The independent free action, like most stand alone actions, can only be done on your turn.
Free actions which are a part of another action can be performed whenever that other action is performed.
That is the position that you are arguing against. Actually argue against that.
And seriously, relax a little.
You're not reading the lines which explain my point, and instead only look at the ones which you claim to be insulting. The reason it seems insulting is because there are so many things that go against their interpretation that they don't see, even though there are more-than-obvious signs.
You're running into the same problems as the other guy when you rule that way. Crane Wing/Riposte Two-Handed Martial shenanigans would have field days at your table, which is obviously not the intent of those abilities; but of course, when you rule that way, they're possible, and potentially effective.
In addition, the bolded parts are impossible to conclude with, because Free Actions do not have that definition. A Free Action is a Free Action is a Free Action. Yes, they can be done in conjunction with other actions without interference, but only because they are called out as being able to do so; they are otherwise all separate actions, of which fall under the "cannot be done outside your turn unless specified," still nullifying the Grab ability for AoOs. The Snap Shot FAQ is basically proof of this, since they had to come out and state that if you can reload the ammunition as a free action, you can do it as part of the AoO.
A similar FAQ has to be released for the Grab ability, since the designers decided to treat "Free Action," an otherwise defined game term, as flavor text for the ability to function the way it's supposed to. Of course, the easiest and most conservative solution is to remove the "as a Free Action," clause in the ability.
But if we want to make Martials have more nice things, fine. Just understand that Paizo hates Martials and giving two-handed Martials the ability to use Crane Wing/Riposte is not what they intended, nor is it really possible by RAW.
You're not reading the lines which explain my point, and instead only look at the ones which you claim to be insulting.
If you have good points to make, don't bury them in useless chatter and hyperbole. It isn't an effective way to communicate. I'm guilty of it too, I understand getting frustrated and resorting to shock value posts... but, realistically, it doesn't ever help the conversation.
The reason it seems insulting is because there are so many things that go against their interpretation that they don't see, even though there are more-than-obvious signs.
You're running into the same problems as the other guy when you rule that way. Crane Wing/Riposte Two-Handed Martial shenanigans would have field days at your table, which is obviously not the intent of those abilities; but of course, when you rule that way, they're possible, and potentially effective.
In addition, the bolded parts are impossible to conclude with, because Free Actions do not have that definition. A Free Action is a Free Action is a Free Action. Yes, they can be done in conjunction with other actions without interference, but only because they are called out as being able to do so; they are otherwise all separate actions, of which fall under the "cannot be done outside your turn unless specified," still nullifying the Grab ability for AoOs. The Snap Shot FAQ is basically proof of this, since they had to come out and state that if you can reload the ammunition as a free action, you can do it as part of the AoO.
A similar FAQ has to be released for the Grab ability, since the designers decided to treat "Free Action," an otherwise defined game term, as flavor text for the ability to function the way it's supposed to. Of course, the easiest and most conservative solution is to remove the "as a Free Action," clause in the ability.
But if we want to make Martials have more nice things, fine. Just understand that Paizo hates Martials and giving two-handed Martials the ability to use Crane Wing/Riposte is not what they intended, nor is it really possible by RAW.
The FAQ only supports the notion that if an ability says you can make a free action, you can. I mean, it isn't that farfetched an idea really... normally whenever an ability says you can do something... it means you can do that thing it says you can do.
The fact that they have to release FAQs telling us that you can in fact do the thing your ability says you can do... well, I think speaks more to the weird culture of trying to fully systematize the rules into a seamless script. Much like a video game. Something that doesn't even require a GM to function. But... the game wasn't ever designed to run without an arbiter.
There is no RAW restriction that states free actions can only be performed on your turn, no exception. We can infer that free actions can only be done on your turn, as a general rule... but it isn't ever specifically called out as such. With that in mind, if you have an ability that requires some sort of free action for it to function, and the ability says you can do something, even out of turn... we should have enough sense to understand it to include whatever necessary free action there might be.
So, as a general rule, free actions only are useable on your turn. There are some exceptions called out, specifically, such as speaking. Further, if an ability says you can take a free action, such as the grab, trip etc, abilities, then you may take said free action whenever the ability says you can use it. Further, if an ability can only ever function with the inclusion of a free action, such as snap shot, then said free action is included in the action to use the ability.
All that makes sense.
Lastly, none of that impacts Crane Wing/Riposte in any way. The condition for using crane wing is that a hand be free... so you can't ever free the hand as part of using crane wing, because you cannot even use crane wing without the free hand.
The FAQ only supports the notion that if an ability says you can make a free action, you can. I mean, it isn't that farfetched an idea really... normally whenever an ability says you can do something... it means you can do that thing it says you can do.
The fact that they have to release FAQs telling us that you can in fact do the thing your ability says you can do... well, I think speaks more to the weird culture of trying to fully systematize the rules into a seamless script. Much like a video game. Something that doesn't even require a GM to function. But... the game wasn't ever designed to run without an arbiter.
There is no RAW restriction that states free actions can only be performed on your turn, no exception. We can infer that free actions can only be done on your turn, as a general rule... but it isn't ever specifically called out as such. With that in mind, if you have an ability that requires some sort of free action for it to function, and the ability says you can do something, even out of turn... we should have enough sense to understand it to include whatever necessary free action there might be.
So, as a general rule, free actions only are useable on your turn. There are some exceptions called out, specifically, such as speaking. Further, if an ability says you can take a free action, such as the grab, trip etc, abilities, then you may take said free action whenever the ability says you can use it. Further, if an ability can only ever function with the inclusion of a free action, such as snap shot, then said free action is included in the action to use the ability.
All that makes sense.
Lastly, none of that impacts Crane Wing/Riposte in any way. The condition for using crane wing is that a hand be free... so you can't ever free the hand as part of using crane wing, because you cannot even use crane wing without the free hand.
Actually, the FAQ only supports the fact that you can draw and nock arrows as part of AoOs allowed via Snap Shot. Saying this same concept transfers to all other abilities that require Free Actions to be done outside your turn in order for said abilities to function as intended is sketchy, given the range of abilities and activities it covers(, hence my "Crane Wing/Riposte Two-Handed Martial shenanigans" phrase). I understand the RAI crystal clear, but it's obvious the Devs didn't put it to paper. (I suspect it's copy-pasta from 3.X material.) And they expect both the players and the GM to take it as written and assume they automatically know the intent behind the written material? No way.
The truth is that they need to FAQ/Errata the ability, because they are using a defined game term as flavor-like text; something which I seem to catch them constantly doing with several things of subject matter in the game as of late.
If it's supposed to be a defined game term, and yet you have to bend the rules of the same game term, which you come out and clearly define, to make a certain subject applicable, then that game term shouldn't even be used to describe that subject. Doing otherwise is counterintuitive to explaining to players who pick up the book how the game is designed to work.
You're correct, the RAW doesn't come out and say it, but there are several precedents set in the game from other material related to Free Actions that it is otherwise the correct intent and assumption to make. Simply ignoring those precedents is what leads you down that path; which is fine for home games, but it's not RAI.
The bolded part is what's being debated, since the whole "as a Free Action," clause is what limits its usability to outside their turn. Removing that clause, or providing a separate FAQ clarifying the statements behind such abilities, they would otherwise work as intended.
Actually, it does apply to Two-Handed Martials trying to pick up Crane Wing/Riposte (though it's usless for them now), since applying and retracting one hand from a two-handed weapon is a Free Action, as stated in the FAQ. Allowing them to do this outside their turn equates to Two-Handed Martials getting a free hand to deflect without taking the consequences that come with it (unable to use their Two-Handed Weapon to carry out the attack; which now has become possible with the whole "Free Actions are allowed outside your turn" ruling, something obviously not intended by the Devs). I.e. Two-Handed Martial Crane Wing/Riposte shenanigans.
**EDIT**
I'll also point out that they would better illustrate their point by removing the "as a Free Action," clause, considering this is the desired effect they're going after in regards to those abilities:
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.
About free actions with a bow, I remember Jason talking about the bad decision it was to make drawing an arrow to shoot with a bow a free action.
It happened when they made the FAQ about the "3 free actions per turn".
And IMO it would be plain stupid to waste a standard action to ready a free action, if you could just make your free action anytime.
Actually, it does apply to Two-Handed Martials trying to pick up Crane Wing/Riposte (though it's usless for them now), since applying and retracting one hand from a two-handed weapon is a Free Action, as stated in the FAQ. Allowing them to do this outside their turn equates to Two-Handed Martials getting a free hand to deflect without taking the consequences that come with it (unable to use their Two-Handed Weapon to carry out the attack; which now has become possible with the whole "Free Actions are allowed outside your turn" ruling, something obviously not intended by the Devs). I.e. Two-Handed Martial Crane Wing/Riposte shenanigans.
**EDIT**
I'll also point out that they would better illustrate their point by removing the "as a Free Action," clause, considering this is the desired effect they're going after in regards to those abilities:
Hrm. You are missing something that is being said, and I'm not sure what it is precisely.
No one is saying that all free actions can be done all willy nilly whenever you want just cuz. Which is what you are suggesting is the issue for Crane Wing.
Otherwise Crane Wing is not an issue. To activate crane wing, you need a free hand. Without a free hand, crane wing will not activate. Since crane wing never activates, there is never a chance for you to use it.
What is being argued is that free actions can be performed when an ability says they can. When it is required for that ability to be functional. Not when you want to force an ability to trigger, that doesn't fly.
Do you see the distinction? It is an important one.
Snap Shot tells us: We threaten and can take AoOs with the bow. (For this to function, we need to be able to load the bow... and it tells us we can make AoOs, so we know we can load it too)
Trip/Grab/Etc abilities tell us: If we hit with an attack, we can free action maneuver. (This tells us that we can do it... thus we know that it can be done.)
Crane Wing tells us: If we have a free hand and are fighting defensively, then we can blah. So the requirement, the condition, the trigger here is the free hand. You cannot just declare that you are using a free action to meet this requirement simply because you feel like it. Nothing tells us that we can drop our grip or whatever to free up that hand... the hand being free is part of the requirement to activate the ability)
See the difference?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of tangents muddying the waters. So I'm going to see if I can dispel a little of it. (Good luck, right?)
Nobody is trying to claim you can take any free action at any given time. Please remember that the abilities being discussed explicitly state that with an attack you can use a specific free action to achieve a specific effect. This is not about other types of free actions or other situations. If you want to bring up a case about other free actions being taken during or outside of the active turn, then make sure they also use such deliberate language. For many of you who are sticking with apples=apples comparisons, awesome.
Regards to Readying an Action:
There are numerous tactical advantages to readying an action. The cornerstone of each and every one is timing. You ready an action because you need it to happen at a specific point in the round. (I'd like to ready a Free Action to drop a bottle of acid on the portcullis rope after my allies are through.) It's not about the action type, it's about controlling the sequence of events. A further advantage is that Readied actions can interrupt other actions. This neither supports nor denies the assumptions on either side in regards to free actions. Or, more pointedly: It says nothing about the issue at hand, merely provides more options to the character.
You can use Snapshot with any ranged weapon that you can reload with a free action, including guns and crossbows. Since you have to invest feats in order to reduce the load time with those weapons separately, this provides solid evidence that there are specific circumstances where you can perform a free action outside of your turn while taking Attacks of Opportunity.
Summed up here:
A melee attack is a standard action.
An Attack of Opportunity allows you to make a melee attack (broad rule, standard action) outside of your turn in response to specific triggers(narrow or more specific rule).
Everybody gets one (core combat rule) with a few, deliberate exceptions.
So, an attack of opportunity is a normal event that allows a typically standard action to be done out of turn in response to specific triggers. And since you are being allowed to take an attack action, you should be allowed to take the relevant free action associated with it.
@ Remy Balstar: What I'm saying is the issue with allowing it to work in that manner is before an attack is made against the player outside their turn, the player can, as a Free Action, take off a hand that is being applied to a Two-Handed Weapon, fulfill the requirement of having a free hand prior to the attack being made, and if hit by an attack (or barely missed, whatever ruling people follow these days), deflect it with that just-now freed hand, which they then follow-up with reapplying it to their Two-Handed Weapon just before taking the Attack of Opportunity with their newly-gripped Two-Handed Weapon, of which that was generated from the deflection via Crane Riposte. Point is, it's not the intent of the Devs to allow Two-Handed Martials to do that, but if we're going to allow Free Actions to work outside their turn, then that's now possible to do by the "RAW".
And that's the problem with how it's worded currently. The ability isn't saying you can take that Free Action to use said ability outside your turn, versus simply removing that clause, and allowing it to work for all attacks, be they iteratives or AoOs. The problem is the ability still does function, but it doesn't function on the level that we can assume is the Devs intent behind the ability.
As it stands, it's either missing the language needed to do what the Devs intended for it to do (that is, all of it anyway), or there is language written in the ability that actually restricts it from doing what it's designed to do. (I'd rather say it's the former, since it's something that plagues more than just the one ability in question.)
Yes, Snap Shot is supposed to do that, but RAW, you couldn't allow the parenthetical, hence why it became a FAQ; to clarify that you're supposed to allow it to work the way the FAQ tells you to.
Yes, it says you can perform a Grap/Trip Maneuver as a Free Action, but there is no language (or to be more accurate, there is restrictive language) that circumvents the otherwise assumed rules regarding Free Actions, in that unless it specifies, it can only be done on your turn; the same exact problem that by RAW plagued Snap Shot.
Since we're agreeing that you can't take free actions outside of your turn unless specified, then the wording "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack" seems pretty clear. Its a single melee attack, nothing more. It doesn't specify it allows attachable free actions with the attack, nor does the definition of those attachable free actions specify that they can be used during AoO's. The general rule is that you can't. Without a specific rule then it is as it is. Not mentioned equals not permitted
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're agreeing that you can't take free actions outside of your turn unless specified, then the wording "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack" seems pretty clear.
Good so far.
It doesn't specify it allows attachable free actions with the attack, nor does the definition of those attachable free actions specify that they can be used during AoO's.
Close. There's a point of logic here. An Attack of Opportunity is a melee attack. If a free action can be done with a melee attack, then the attack of opportunity qualifies because it is a melee attack. The specific language of the ability is permissive, creating an exception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see what your saying, but its not a required free action, its an optional one. Since free actions aren't allowed outside your turn, then you are forced to take the less favorable option.
Honestly between my logic and that which I noticed in your last comment, this seems kinda like a case of unstoppable force vs immovable object. In this sense, the use of the rules for each of our arguments appear to be legal and neither outranks the other. This really does need to be addressed by a dev.
Close. There's a point of logic here. An Attack of Opportunity is a melee attack. If a free action can be done with a melee attack, then the attack of opportunity qualifies because it is a melee attack. The specific language of the ability is permissive, creating an exception.
In what manner is the language of the Grab Ability permissive to be usable outside your turn? The general rule regarding when you can use Free Actions is "Only during your turn unless specified." As written, the ability makes no effort to come out and say "Yup, this even works outside your turn," as it only says you perform the ability "as a Free Action." That's all it says.
If you show the RAW where it says you can do it outside your turn, then I'll concede. Problem is, there is no such language, and until such language develops, RAW, the Grab ability cannot be used with AoO's.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it can't be done because it's an attack; I'm saying it can't be done because it's performed outside the creature's turn, which Free Actions, unless specified otherwise, cannot be taken.
|
I see what your saying, but its not a required free action, its an optional one. Since free actions aren't allowed outside your turn, then you are forced to take the less favorable option.
Honestly between my logic and that which I noticed in your last comment, this seems kinda like a case of unstoppable force vs immovable object. In this sense, the use of the rules for each of our arguments appear to be legal and neither outranks the other. This really does need to be addressed by a dev.
Indeed.
@Darksol we are of the same opinion.
Yes it can be done because it follows an attack
No it cant be done because its not your turn
Both requirements were not met, therefor it can not be done
still, It would be nice for a dev to clarify
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In what manner is the language of the Grab Ability permissive to be usable outside your turn? The general rule regarding when you can use Free Actions is "Only during your turn unless specified." As written, the ability makes no effort to come out and say "Yup, this even works outside your turn," as it only says you perform the ability "as a Free Action." That's all it says.If you show the RAW where it says you can do it outside your turn, then I'll concede. Problem is, there is no such language, and until such language develops, RAW, the Grab ability cannot be used with AoO's.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it can't be done because it's an attack; I'm saying it can't be done because it's performed outside the creature's turn, which Free Actions, unless specified otherwise, cannot be taken.
Grab uses the following language...
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
I'm calling out the not-optional language. If a creature with grab hits on the grab attack, it deals damage -and- attempts to start a grapple. Not "can", or "may", but "and" is the way it is written. There is no language stating "only on its turn". When an attack of opportunity hits, and that attack possessed the Grab ability, the creature must attempt to start a grapple. Not just on its turn.
Lastly...
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally
@Errant that's a good catch, but realistically, that's probably a mistake in wording. I doubt they meant it to be a forced action
|
|
@Errant that's a good catch, but realistically, that's probably a mistake in wording. I doubt they meant it to be a forced action
Regardless, it is the language we are stuck with. Every possible encounter cannot be qualified for in the rules, so we're left to work with what is actually printed.
It's just strange that the "free action" part was left out of the Stirge's statblock (or Attach in general).
So a creature with Attach can grapple during an AoO with no question, but snakes and such generate FAQ posts.
I think the emphasis is getting misconstrued. I feel that section of the ability should be read as: "a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity". Of course, as I mentioned above, I can't speak to intent, so that's just my interpretation.
I am very interested what an Otyugh is able to do at the end of this thread on aoo.
There are tree possibilities:
1. Aoo
2. Aoo + grab + constrict
3. Aoo + grab + constrict + release
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seem to be a lot slippery slope arguments that if you allow Grab on an AoO then people will be able to use that as precedent so they can change their grip on weapons, draw weapons with Quick Draw, or drop prone to avoid ranged attacks while it isn’t their turn. There’s nothing in the language of the Grab ability which would allow these various actions though. There is something in the language of the Grab ability which allow a free action to grapple. I can’t see any slippery slope here. These are different issues.
The use of “prompted” free actions from special abilities out of turn seems like an unclear spot in the rules to me. I could imagine Paizo ruling either way on it or even ruling different ways for different abilities. In the past they've ruled that Snap Shot can prompt a free action. Obviously this situation is rather different. I've already expressed my opinion on Rock Catching, but I wouldn't presume to guess how Paizo will rule on AoO+Grab. I will point out that Trick Riding seemingly allows you to use two immediate actions (for the same thing) in one round though. I think sometimes things are just supposed to work the way which would make the most sense in play. Unfortunately we can't all agree on what makes sense.
@DEXRAY - I'd guess that IF Paizo ruled allowing the use of Grab during an AoO you'd be entitled to option #2. I'd say that #3 is out since there's nothing in the language of the Grab ability which grants you a free action to drop somebody. If you make a successful grapple check then constrict damage applies.
@Nefreet - I wonder if whoever wrote the rules didn't expect that they'd undergo a rigorous semantic inspection down to such minute points. Perhaps the "free action" language was put into Grab just to help make clear that this grapple attempt doesn't require a standard action like a regular grapple attempt would. If they didn't include some language like "free" or "without using a standard action" then maybe people would be arguing that you can only use Grab if you hit somebody with an AoO during your own turn. I'm just guessing. These questions have been coming up for years for Grab, Trip, and Rock Catching though. I hope Paizo will rule one way or the other.
In what manner is the language of the Grab Ability permissive to be usable outside your turn? The general rule regarding when you can use Free Actions is "Only during your turn unless specified." As written, the ability makes no effort to come out and say "Yup, this even works outside your turn," as it only says you perform the ability "as a Free Action." That's all it says.If you show the RAW where it says you can do it outside your turn, then I'll concede. Problem is, there is no such language, and until such language develops, RAW, the Grab ability cannot be used with AoO's.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it can't be done because it's an attack; I'm saying it can't be done because it's performed outside the creature's turn, which Free Actions, unless specified otherwise, cannot be taken.
Grab uses the following language...
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.I'm calling out the not-optional language. If a creature with grab hits on the grab attack, it deals damage -and- attempts to start a grapple. Not "can", or "may", but "and" is the way it is written. There is no language stating "only on its turn". When an attack of opportunity hits, and that attack possessed the Grab ability, the creature must attempt to start a grapple. Not just on its turn.
Lastly...
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attackMaking an attack is a standard action.You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally
You're cutting out relevant subject matter in attempts to make your point: Yes, it deals damage normal. And yes, it makes a grapple attempt. But that grapple attempt is made as a Free Action that doesn't provoke AoO's. It's not as a Free Action which can be used outside your turn, which would be required for it to function if it were to be a Free Action.
Cutting out the other part of the grapple subject, you get this:
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grappleas a free actionwithout provoking an attack of opportunity.
The intent behind that ability is so much easier to comprehend, because you're not using an already-defined game term which actually limits the ability's out-of-turn usage, something which I am 99% sure is not intended by the Devs.
An AoO, though by RAW, is a melee attack, which normally requires a Standard Action, the context of what an AoO is supposed to do supersedes the ideal of the attack being made via an AoO requiring a Standard Action to do.
I will point out though that an Attack made through an AoO is not an Action; yes, one can take an AoO at any point which they threaten the target, but it doesn't cost any actions to perform AoO's, since the book says you take them "for free". The "can perform Free Actions while taking another action" clause wouldn't apply to AoO's, since AoO's are taken for free, and don't cost any actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry I didn't catch your point with the "free action as part of an action".
Still, I'm not convinced an attack of opportunity is an action, as it is repetitively described as a "free attack", "it interrupts the flow of action", etc...
And the "attack action" seems irrelevant, or you're arguing you can use a vital strike on an AoO, and we know it doesn't work thanks to a FAQ.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9pyy
Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?
No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.
In the charge and Spring Attack, the description is making a single melee attack, the exact same words in the attack of opportunity description.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seem to be a lot slippery slope arguments that if you allow Grab on an AoO then people will be able to use that as precedent so they can change their grip on weapons, draw weapons with Quick Draw, or drop prone to avoid ranged attacks while it isn’t their turn.
I'm sure some people would try to take it as a precedent, but I don't see how it is. Saying that creatures that have rider effects on their attacks apply those rider effects on AoOs does not = free actions can be taken when it is not your turn.
Of course, it would be better if the FAQ was responded to clearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group decided that normally you can take triggered free actions outside of your turn but not untriggered ones -- so the free grab after a successful attack works, but moving a hand onto or off of a two-handed weapon so that you can take an opportunity attack either at reach or directly adjacent does not. It was only after reading this thread that I realized that this is a house rule that we lifted from 4E (which had a similar debate for a while).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, let's look at the crux of the counterpoint...
Unfortunately, the limit on free actions is written differently:
Thats very different. It means I can use a Free Action when I use an Immediate Action, for instance. This could happen not on my turn. Also, the Attack of Opportunity is not an action in and of itself, it is the rule that allows you to take a specific standard action (make a melee attack) out of sequence. The language indicating this is a free attack reinforces that you are not required to lose your action on the previous or following turn to make the attack. The opportunity to attack, in essence, has no inherent cost. Free. Without such language people would instead be arguing that you lose your next standard action when you make an AoO.
As for Vital Strike...that's just more mud in the waters. But I'm glad we're pooling more information and interest. The FAQ quoted doesn't mention Attacks of Opportunity at all. "Charging is a special full-round action" is the first line Charge. I don't think we should be quoting precedent from an ability that is deliberately called out as being "special".
|
So, let's look at the crux of the counterpoint...
Free Actions cannot be used outside of your turn. Unfortunately, the limit on free actions is written differently:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally" Thats very different. It means I can use a Free Action when I use an Immediate Action, for instance. This could happen not on my turn. Also, the Attack of Opportunity is not an action in and of itself, it is the rule that allows you to take a specific standard action (make a melee attack) out of sequence. The language indicating this is a free attack reinforces that you are not required to lose your action on the previous or following turn to make the attack. The opportunity to attack, in essence, has no inherent cost. Free. Without such language people would instead be arguing that you lose your next standard action when you make an AoO.
I would then ask what the context of the word 'normally' means here...
My first instinct was to think it means during your (normal) turn.
After all, they could just as easily have said "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action" and that would have been clear enough to understand that free actions can be taken any time another action is make. However, with the word 'normally' included, it infers that there are instances where actions exist which are not 'normal'. Again, my first instinct is to think that these non-normal actions are those taken outside your turn.
EDIT: I guess I can see interpreting the use of 'normal' as any time a full action, standard action, swift action, immediate action, or AOO is taken. It still feels a little broad though.
64 FAQ clicks so far. We're trudging along slowly.
Press button to cross intersection.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would then ask what the context of the word 'normally' means here...
My first instinct was to think it means during your (normal) turn.
After all, they could just as easily have said "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action" and that would have been clear enough to understand that free actions can be taken any time another action is make. However, with the word 'normally' included, it infers that there are instances where actions exist which are not 'normal'. Again, my first instinct is to think that these non-normal actions are those taken outside your turn.
EDIT: I guess I can see interpreting the use of 'normal' as any time a full action, standard action, swift action, immediate action, or AOO is taken. It still feels a little broad though.
In this context I feel that "normally" is synonymous with "usually". Indicating that certain situations or abilities may prevent prevent actions.
Now, that may not be the case. If it refers to "Normal" as a broad concept, then I would have to say an AoO is pretty normal. Except for some specifically called out exceptions everyone gets an AoO that they can perform. Sometimes several. They're an integral part of combat and every combat strategy involves accounting for them. So...how normal is that?
64 FAQ clicks so far. We're trudging along slowly.
After these two FAQs have run their course, we should drum up more support for this one.
So, let's look at the crux of the counterpoint...
Free Actions cannot be used outside of your turn. Unfortunately, the limit on free actions is written differently:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally" Thats very different. It means I can use a Free Action when I use an Immediate Action, for instance. This could happen not on my turn. Also, the Attack of Opportunity is not an action in and of itself, it is the rule that allows you to take a specific standard action (make a melee attack) out of sequence. The language indicating this is a free attack reinforces that you are not required to lose your action on the previous or following turn to make the attack. The opportunity to attack, in essence, has no inherent cost. Free. Without such language people would instead be arguing that you lose your next standard action when you make an AoO.
As for Vital Strike...that's just more mud in the waters. But I'm glad we're pooling more information and interest. The FAQ quoted doesn't mention Attacks of Opportunity at all. "Charging is a special full-round action" is the first line Charge. I don't think we should be quoting precedent from an ability that is deliberately called out as being "special".
Those two are completely separate points. Taking a Free Action during my turn makes no impact with the factor of me being able to use said Free Actions in conjunction with other actions.
But you are forgetting one very important statement: an AoO is not an Action, and the "Free Action" you can take to make a Grapple attempt only triggers if the AoO is a hit, something which by RAW, cannot be done outside your turn because the ability lacks the language which specifies that it can. There is a lot of text in the Grab entry; let's sift through it, shall we?
From the official Paizo Pathfinder site:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.
NOTHING in that entry makes any mention of being able to use this ability outside your turn, because RAW, you can't initiate a Grapple as a Free Action outside your turn. If you take that second point to work with activities outside your turn, you run into munchkin shenanigans. Here's a prime example of the kind of shenanigans you would run into.
Coming back to Attacks of Opportunity, you take them for free; the context and real-life definition the book gives us means that AoO's are best defined by this entry in the Combat section:
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.
AoO's would fall under this, since they do not cite (nor make any mention of requiring) an Action Type that correlates to it. Ergo, it isn't an Action.
As far as RAW is concerned, the Grab ability does not fall under the above category, especially considering there is the "as a Free Action" clause written in the entry. If the Devs really wanted to have this ability work with AoO's (and if they did, but didn't make any change to its wording to reflect that, then it only proves that the ability is copy-pasta from 3.X and needs to be FAQ'd/Errata'd), they would've remove that clause, because then it would fall under the same logic that goes with AoO's, in that it doesn't require an action to be taken in order to use the ability.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those two are completely separate points. Taking a Free Action during my turn makes no impact with the factor of me being able to use said Free Actions in conjunction with other actions.
Well, since the legally defined restriction of taking a free action isn't "on your turn" but "when you can take other actions". "On your turn" is a subset of "when you can take actions." So that leaves only one remaining point to the opposition...
But you are forgetting one very important statement: an AoO is not an Action,
This is the only remaining barrier to Grab, whether or not an AoO is an "action". It's not that I'm forgetting it. It's that I do not agree with your interpretation. I have also explained why I disagree.
NOTHING in that entry makes any mention of being able to use this ability outside your turn, because RAW, you can't initiate a Grapple as a Free Action outside your turn. If you take that second point to work with activities outside your turn, you run into munchkin shenanigans. Here's a prime example of the kind of shenanigans you would run into.
Nothing in that description restricts to being only on my turn. It simply says if I hit, then I do damage and make a grapple check as a free action. The language is imperative, "do damage and grapple." We come back to the singular question: "Is the attack from an attack of opportunity an action?" If the answer is Yes, then we can use a Free Action as required by Grab.
Coming back to Attacks of Opportunity, you take them for free; the context and real-life definition the book gives us means that AoO's are best defined by this entry in the Combat section:
<snipped quote>
AoO's would fall under this, since they do not cite (nor make any mention of requiring) an Action Type that correlates to it. Ergo, it isn't an Action.
I do not agree with this at all. An AoO is in no way "minor". You're making a melee attack and it correlates directly. Melee Attack is listed as a Standard Action in the action chart and under the definition of Standard Actions. Melee Attacks alone can also significantly change the outcome of a battle. You can make a better argument that an Attack of Opportunity is a Free Action. Which comes back to: "Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity an action?"
As far as RAW is concerned...If the Devs really wanted ...they would've...
This is really not a discussion to start claiming your interpretation is RAW or that you can intuit the intentions of the Developers. We're here to discuss the difference in understanding and get a FAQ reply to put the disparity to rest.
And you've ignored my point of taking that definition literally equating to shenanigans and munchkins having field days at your table. By all means, I can use Swift Actions at any point outside my turn, since I can take a Swift Action whenever I can take a Free Action, which invalidates the point of Immediate Actions. You can also Ready a Free Action, which is pointless when you can already do so outside your turn, at any time. The shenanigans go on and on, and only do so when we take your interpretation into account. Mine, on the other hand, is much more conservative of the game mechanics that it would otherwise (not) affect.
You've explained it, but it hasn't really done anything. All you've tried saying is "Can be done in conjunction with other actions," and your ramifications for it to be able to be done outside your turn have zero relevance with the restrictions obviously set with Free Actions; or if we want to say that it does, it leads to the same ridiculous shenanigans I've explained above.
If an Attack of Opportunity is an Action, then what kind of Action is it? It's not defined as being an Action in the game; so we absolutely have to say it takes some sort of action to do, even though there are rules covering activities that aren't even actions at all?
Fine, we'll play this silly game of yours. What kind of Action is it then? Free Action? Standard Action? Swift Action? Immediate Action? And whatever Action you say it is, are you going to magically allow them to ignore whatever restrictions that follow when it comes to the respective Action Type you call it out as, which you obviously do with the Grab ability, even though the ability makes no specific claim to be usable outside your turn?
Let's compare what would happen if we tried to classify them as any of the action types listed in the game, and see if it properly fits the intent behind Attacks of Opportunity and any related content:
Free Action: This runs into the same problem as the Grab ability; you cannot use it outside your turn, because an Attack of Opportunity doesn't really make any mention of it stating to be usable outside your turn, and there's this.
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).
In addition, using your own logic and flawed definition of what an Attack of Oppportunity is supposed to represent, it couldn't possibly be a Free Action, since a melee attack is already defined as a Standard Action. Ignoring that, you can only make an Attack of Opportunity if an enemy performs an action that provokes; in which case, unless you readied the action (which is its own Standard Action to make the attack anyway, and doesn't require a proxy), it makes Attacks of Opportunity absolutely useless to implement in the game. So that can't be it.
Swift Action: This falls under the same disrepute, since you can take a Swift Action whenever you can normally take a Free Action. Sure, you can be stupid and say you can take a Swift Action while speaking, which is a Free Action to do and can be done outside your turn, but that defeats the purpose of Immediate Actions, so that doesn't make sense.
Move Action: This is not only irrelevant, but also cannot be done outside your turn unless readied.
Immediate Action: This makes a lot more sense, but guess what? You can only take one per round, can't take this with a Swift Action, and by RAW, Combat Reflexes wouldn't allow you to take more than one Immediate Action for Attacks of Opportunity, making that feat actually useless to take. So that can't be it.
Standard Action: Not only would this be a waste of a Standard Action, it's already covered by Readied Actions.
Full-Round Action: Same as above, except much worse.
So where do we go from here? None of the Action types make any sense, given their listed restrictions. So what do you do? You simply say it's not an action, and the activity in question only follows a certain restriction: in the case of AoO's, an enemy has to provoke in one of your threatened squares for you to take a free melee attack at them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you've ignored my point of taking that definition literally equating to shenanigans and munchkins having field days at your table. By all means, I can use Swift Actions at any point outside my turn...
There is an enormous difference between taking a specified free action in response to a specified trigger, and taking Free/Swift actions willy nilly.
Frankly, I'm shocked you don't see that.
You can also Ready a Free Action, which is pointless when you can already do so outside your turn, at any time.
See above. Also, Readying an Action is about [/i]timing[/i]. Forcing a specific effect to occur at a specific time. Free Actions can be readied because there is no reason to prevent it if you can ready a more costly action. This has been illustrated before. Readying an Action has no bearing on either argument.
You've explained it, but it hasn't really done anything.
This makes me laugh, because, you know, I am totally getting that feeling, too. I'm glad we can agree on some things.
All you've tried saying is "Can be done in conjunction with other actions," and your ramifications for it to be able to be done outside your turn have zero relevance with the restrictions obviously set with Free Actions;
You mean the restrictions that say:
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
Because...those are the Rules As Written, and I'm sorry you don't want that to matter, but it does when the rules are what we're interpreting.
If an Attack of Opportunity is an Action, then what kind of Action is it?
I've already explained my proposal on that. Maybe it was complicated?
Fine, we'll play this silly game of yours...magically allow...you obviously do... using your own logic and flawed definition...Sure, you can be stupid...
Don't be a jerk. Using inflammatory language doesn't help you.
Finally, since you and I cannot seem to agree that the proper way to run a Free Action is as it is written in the rules (quoted above), I am unsure what further progress is to be made.
@ ErrantPursuit: Except according to the same RAW you post, you actually can do that. I'm saying your proposal is ridiculous on its face. Because it creates munchkin shenanigans. And when your proposal creates shenanigans, well...the whole idea becomes a mockery. I'm simply showing that to you.
The point I'm making is that the Free Action for the Grab ability makes no distinction from whatever other normal Free Actions can be taken, all of which cannot be done outside your turn (which you apparently agree with, though your "RAW" says otherwise). If no distinction is made, we can only assume it follows whatever other normal Free Actions can be taken, because we have nothing that says otherwise. Ergo, it's still trapped in the "cannot be done outside your turn" precedent. Nothing changes that. Nothing. Not one damn thing. Except for intent. But what does that have to do with the RAW basically saying "No, you can't," or "Yes, and you can do this, and that too, and break the game while doing so!"?
But when it comes to RAW, which boldly says either you can't use Grab on AoO's, or according to your RAW, says you can, as well as X, Y, and Z, and everything else under the sun that is exploitable by munchkins, which also goes against the intent of the Devs rulings regarding X, Y, and Z, and whatever else, you go from simply running into a minor error that can be fixed with a few simple keystrokes, or you open Pandora's Box and let whatever crazy Cthulhu-like subject matter from there plague the game and essentially destroy any sense of order and balance in it, resulting in a revised or new edition of the game.
And you're right, at this point we've reached an impasse. Neither of us can explain to or convince the other of what the ability should and should not do, as well as what should and should not be written to reflect that.
From here, only the Devs can sort it out (if they so wish; otherwise, it's a mystery that is only determined by the table rules we play with).
|
|
Remember, because a Free Action can happen when you are taking other actions it can happen when you take an Immediate Action. An Immediate Action can be taken outside of your turn. Clearly Free Actions happen outside of your turn. Which, of course brings us back to the only real question left: "Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity an action?"
Anything else is just more rhetoric.
I agree that only official clarification can clear up this issue. It would be nice if any FAQ for this could cover other "triggered" free action issues like Rock Catching and the Trip universal monster ability (even if it just covers those two specifically to avoid accidentally creating an unintended precedent somehow)
EDIT - As an aside, it would be nice to get more opinions on what you need to do to maintain the Pinned condition from round to round. I have the start of a thread on it here though it has only garnered a few posts so far. If a monster like an Owlbear can pick the "Pin" action while maintaining the grapple on one round and then pick the "Damage" action on subsequent rounds while maintaining the Pinned condition "for free" that would be a huge defensive power gain for such monsters.
|
|
It would be nice if any FAQ for this could cover other "triggered" free action issues like Rock Catching and the Trip universal monster ability (even if it just covers those two specifically to avoid accidentally creating an unintended precedent somehow)
You mean like the question everyone's clicking to have FAQ'd?
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha, I just had a character of mine die from a monster with grab hitting him with an AoO, free action grapple him, and then constricting him to death. Good times.
It was a good death. All 100% legit by RAW.
Why?
AoO lets him attack. His attack lets him grapple. That simple.