@nefreet - I have already clicked the FAQ. I wonder if Paizo might shy away from the "or similar abilities" bit. I can't think of many other abilities with similar language though.
Clicked.
I too am interested in clarification on this issue. My personal feeling is that creature abilities like trip and grab probably should activate on an AoO but I haven`t seen it happen enough in real games to be sure how this affects game balance.
It seems to me that part of the problem here is the definition of "action." The intuitive thing to think is that if something can act in some way then it must be taking an action. But a lot of people are arguing that an AoO is not an action in game terms, and I can`t refute that.
It seems to me that if Paizo rules on this then they should explain whether an AoO is an action or not.
Peet
If an AoO is not an action... then an AoO could never provoke an AoO. Only actions can provoke attacks of opportunity within the default combat rules.
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Etc. There are more, but yall get the idea. Action provoke, there aren't default rules for anything but actions to provoke.
So, if AoOs are not actions...
The untrained attacker attempts to trip you, and provokes. You trip him, even though you are untrained. he doesn't get an AoO, because you are only making an AoO, which isn't an action.
But, we can certainly infer that AoOs are actually actions. That is clear enough.
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Here, an AoO is a qualifying type of action which could be used for a maneuver. Indeed, if you use your AoO to do a trip maneuver, and you do not have Improved Trip, you provoke an AoO yourself.
Since only actions provoke, and since only actions can fuel maneuvers, we must conclude that an AoO is indeed an action, of some kind.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an AoO is an action, I don't believe it qualifies as a normal action. I also don't believe free actions were ever intended to happen on attacks of opportunity. This has come up a lot in previous threads and I've been eager to find an official ruling. Locally we play that you may not do free actions on AoOs, but it'd be nice to not have such a big thing with table variation.
Really the balance issues created are why I don't believe it's intended. Take for instance a Magma Ooze, which is a CR7 out of Bestiary 2. It'd be very easy to one-round a player with the ooze if given a chance to take an attack of opportunity with grab.
Attack of Opportunity: Slam 2d6+13 +2d6 Burn, +2d6+13 constrict, +2d6 burn again (as part of the constrict)
It's a harsh enough creature for a CR7 doing that kind of damage on its own turn, but since the character grappled isn't likely to get an escape attempt before the ooze gets to go the ooze gets to add it's grab damage in as well when it maintains. So:
Ooze turn: Maintain (Grab Damage) 2d6+13 +2d6 Burn, +2d6+13 constrict, +2d6 Burn, Choose a grapple action (Damage) 2d6+13 +2d6 Burn.
This creates a situation where a CR7 has a very real possibility to do 18d6+65 damage in a single round.
FAQ'd the original post!
No, Darksol, it doesn't "create munchkin shenanigans".
No one but you has ever proposed a generic rule that absolutely all free actions can be taken at any time no matter whose turn it is, no matter what anyone is doing, just because someone felt like it.
Several people have pointed out that the Grab ability appears to state that, whenever you hit with a melee attack with this particular quality, you
automaticallystart a grapple .
Fixed.
Actually, Mr. ErrantPursuit decided to point out that RAW, Free Actions lack the restrictive language of only being usable during your turn and used that as a point to get his interpretation across. It is because of this silly interpretation that I threw out the "munchkin shenanigans" "strawman" argument. But hey, if you want Swift Actions, which by RAW, can be taken anytime you're normally allowed to take Free Actions, to inadvertantly nullify the purpose of there being Immediate Actions, then I'm game. And that's one of many I can dish out...
In addition, if we're going to ignore the fact that it is made as a Free Action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, then by all means, Grab with AoO's all you want.
But it's not RAW. Free Actions are only done on your turn, and this ability makes no mention this ability being usable outside your turn, or otherwise changing the paradigm associated with Free Actions.
RAI, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to AoO's. But RAW, it can't, because there is no language in the ability that supports your interpretation. There is no "even if it is not your turn," or "the grapple attempt can be usable outside your turn," or whatever, which would, by the assumed definition of a regular Free Action, be required for it to function the way you claim it to.
The ability is written poorly, using (apparently) defined game terms to mean a completely different subject leads to your interpretation. If it were meant to be used with AoO's, then the wording needs a fix, because RAW says otherwise.
Was there ever a FAQ regarding whether a creature with Grab effectively gets "double damage" while maintaining the grapple though? I'd think that it doesn't, but over the years I've repeatedly seen people insist that it should. I thought that was what Constrict is for. I've been surprised by similar stuff in the past though (most recently by lances getting the benefits of being two-handed even when wielded in one hand)
@Darksol - Per your interpretation of RAW the Rock Catching ability can only be used as a readied action. While some people feel that's just fine I find it kind of silly, as do several people I game with. Anyhow, I don't see this as a RAW debate but an appeal to Paizo to FAQ some abilities which might, as you say, be poorly written (or at least unclear)
anytime you're normally allowed to take Free Actions, to inadvertantly nullify the purpose of there being Immediate Actions, then I'm game.
I don't have a dog in this race (I do it one of the two ways at my table and I'm happy with how it works) but I wanted to point out that isn't correct with either interpretation.
Immediate actions interrupt the flow of something - and can be done regardless of you having any action at all.
The monster can be across the room invisible and you can invoke an immediate which happens *before* the monster gets to finish it's action.
AoO's *are* immediate in that the resolve before the trigger completes - however they can't happen without the trigger - and thus are outside of the players control.
Immediate actions (if available) are always at the players control and (without GM fiat - going by RAW only) pre-empt even the GM's actions.
|
RAW, It's pretty straight forward that you're not allowed to do it. Sure, it's a Free Action you can take when you hit a creature with an attack; if it occurs outside your turn, you aren't given a special exception to take that Free Action outside your turn, since there is no clause explicitly stating it can be used with Attacks of Opportunity or otherwise.
Speaking sets the precedent that Free Actions are limited to be taken only during your turn, since it is the only written subject that signifies language stating you can do so outside your turn. Everything else which lacks such language would follow the same restrictions as nearly every other action type.
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,...
I think it's well-established by the rules that you can only take Free Actions on your turn.
"During one turn, there are a wide variety of actions that your character can perform, from swinging a sword to casting a spell." Just above "Action types" in the Combat section: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Additionally, only the Immediate action specifies that it can be taken when it's not your turn. This implies that all other actions that are not immediate actions must be taken on your turn.
You are challenging the assertion that "free actions must be taken on the character's turn" and I'm providing two sources of precedence that states this is the case. I hope this helps.
|
|
Was there ever a FAQ regarding whether a creature with Grab effectively gets "double damage" while maintaining the grapple though? I'd think that it doesn't, but over the years I've repeatedly seen people insist that it should. I thought that was what Constrict is for. I've been surprised by similar stuff in the past though (most recently by lances getting the benefits of being two-handed even when wielded in one hand)
@Darksol - Per your interpretation of RAW the Rock Catching ability can only be used as a readied action. While some people feel that's just fine I find it kind of silly, as do several people I game with. Anyhow, I don't see this as a RAW debate but an appeal to Paizo to FAQ some abilities which might, as you say, be poorly written (or at least unclear)
Hi there. It's off topic, and I don't recall seeing a FAQ for it, but the devil in the Grab ability is in the wording:
"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."
So after the initial Grab, on subsequent rounds, you first must make your Grapple check. If you succeed, then the language in the Grab ability kicks in, because you have made a "successful grapple check..during successive rounds." Which means your character now, "...automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the old."
Once that's resolved, you NOW get to take your regular grapple actions, which means you can choose to: 1) Damage your opponent, 2) Move your opponent, or 3) Pin your opponent. If you choose option #1 to Damage your opponent, you get to roll your damage again. This is where the notion of "double damage" comes from.
Again, off topic, but I thought I'd try to help since you asked.
|
@nefreet - I have already clicked the FAQ. I wonder if Paizo might shy away from the "or similar abilities" bit. I can't think of many other abilities with similar language though.
Thanks for clicking!!
The "or similar abilities" bit was in reference to the Pull and Push universal monster abilities I mentioned just before the question, which also leaves the possibility open for other "similar abilities" that may be published in the future.
Oh! Forgot. Spell-storing weapons would also fall under this category, since releasing the spell is also a free action.
That puts us at 5 abilities: Grab, Pull, Push, Trip, and Spell-storing. Can anyone think of any others?
@Red Wullf - Thanks, I think I understand the double damage assertion. I tend to disagree based on game balance concerns and a suspicion of poor RAW wording, but I certainly wouldn't say I'm "sure" it should be done one way or the other. My PC in our next game will have Grab and be doing a lot of grappling, so I'm very interested in such questions though I wouldn't necessarily want the most powerful interpretation. Anyhow, it could probably be the subject of another FAQ request thread.
@Nefreet - I'd prefer to see an inclusive answer and hope Paizo won't find providing one too problematic. I hadn't even thought of spell storing weapons. This prompted me to look up Spell Storing armor, which seems even more problematic since it uses a swift action rather than a free action but is "clearly" (IMO) meant to be used when you're hit (kind of like Rock Catching)
|
Fixed.
By deleting the lines in the rules you don't make your point. However, you are welcome to run it at your table in any way you prefer.
You are challenging the assertion that "free actions must be taken on the character's turn" and I'm providing two sources of precedence that states this is the case. I hope this helps.
As a source, I prefer the rules for Free Actions. These are located beneath Action Types in the Combat section you linked. They have also been quotes and linked here previously. Please feel free to read back and catch up.
Since Free Actions can be taken when you take other actions, even Immediate Actions, the only question left to debate is:
Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity considered an Action?
So far, only Remy Balster has made a compelling argument on the actual discussion. Feel free to participate.
Fixed.By deleting the lines in the rules you don't make your point. However, you are welcome to run it at your table in any way you prefer.
You are challenging the assertion that "free actions must be taken on the character's turn" and I'm providing two sources of precedence that states this is the case. I hope this helps.As a source, I prefer the rules for Free Actions. These are located beneath Action Types in the Combat section you linked. They have also been quotes and linked here previously. Please feel free to read back and catch up.
Since Free Actions can be taken when you take other actions, even Immediate Actions, the only question left to debate is:
Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity considered an Action?So far, only Remy Balster has made a compelling argument on the actual discussion. Feel free to participate.
How am I "deleting lines in the rules"? I'm not the one arguing that you should be able to take a Free Action to initiate a Grapple outside your turn on a successful AoO, which requires deleting the "as a Free Action" clause cited within, as well as all the restrictions and assumptions that follow with it, which is the same as any other action type; unless it says otherwise, it cannot be done outside your turn. The Grab ability is no different.
You decided to try and circumvent that concept by citing the Free Action entry with no regard as to the ramifications of what it brings when you take it as-is; hence munchkin shenanigans. And that's not counting how you ignore the precedent of example Free Actions listed under that entry, where the Speaking action specifically states it can be done outside your turn, versus the other Free Action examples lacking that language.
And by all means, I'll be getting to Remy's "AoO Action" argument here momentarily...
@ Remy Balstar (& ErrantPursuit): You sunk your own case by citing that last portion in the Combat Maneuver entry, especially considering that a melee attack isn't simply an action, which is what an AoO replaces.
Proof? You ignored this, listed as a '6' in the legend on the Actions in Combat table on the official Paizo PRD, with a '6' being right next to the "Perform a Combat Maneuver" entry in the Actions in Combat table:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
So it's cut and dry; RAW, melee attacks aren't an AoO, and that's all an AoO is. One single melee attack made at your highest BAB, which then says melee attacks are applied once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action (based on your BAB), or as an Attack of Opportunity, which we can then correlate to an Attack of Opportunity being no action required to take.
**EDIT**
This also calls into question the RAW regarding "actions provoking," and AoO's not being an action. Since a Combat Maneuver always provokes from the target making the maneuver (unless otherwise stated), it's safe to say that specific rule trumps the general assumption of a non-action provoking an Aoo.
In addition, one could also stipulate from this correlation that "actions" in the sense of provocation applies to activity of any kind that would provoke, regardless of whatever action it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How am I "deleting lines in the rules"?
You crossed off a line in the rules and said "fixed".
You decided to try and circumvent that concept by citing the Free Action entry
You mean I tried to circumvent your rhetoric by citing the rules? This is a not-argument and a non-point
Free Actions listed under that entry, where the Speaking action specifically states it can be done outside your turn, versus the other Free Action examples lacking that language.
Hmm, a specific Free Action with specific permissions to be available even when you cannot take other actions. This is yet another not-argument and non-point.
@ Remy Balstar (& ErrantPursuit): You sunk your own case by citing that last portion in the Combat Maneuver entry, especially considering that a melee attack isn't simply an action, which is what an AoO replaces.
The same table says "Making a Melee Attack is a Standard Action." Which is repeated under Standard Actions. Perhaps you didn't read that far?
Proof? You ignored this, listed as a '6' in the legend on the Actions in Combat table on the official Paizo PRD, with a '6' being right next to the "Perform a Combat Maneuver" entry in the Actions in Combat table:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.So it's cut and dry; RAW, melee attacks aren't an AoO, and that's all an AoO is. One single melee attack made at your highest BAB, which then says melee attacks are applied once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action (based on your BAB), or as an Attack of Opportunity, which we can then correlate to an Attack of Opportunity being no action required to take.
That's a very deliberate misinterpretation. This is specifically stating that there are some(not all) combat maneuvers in which you can substitute them for an attack instead of a Standard Action, which is what we would otherwise be using.
This also calls into question the RAW regarding "actions provoking," and AoO's not being an action. Since a Combat Maneuver always provokes from the target making the maneuver (unless otherwise stated), it's safe to say that specific rule trumps the general assumption of a non-action provoking an Aoo.
In addition, one could also stipulate from this correlation that "actions" in the sense of provocation applies to activity of any kind that would provoke, regardless of whatever action it is.
I find it very curious that you're willing to make allowances for something that is only an inference yet refuse to merely consider that the Free Action required by Grab is a specific rule to trump the general as put forth by seebs. Or even simply stick to the one remaining refuge for your position, which is the ambiguous and easy to debate territory of:
Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity considered an action?
I crossed it off because it's not automatic, and not in the Grab entry.
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.
If there is the word "automatically" in that entry, then I'll concede that point and leave this thread. Too bad there isn't. I'll also say that since you attempt to grapple as a Free Action, and you cannot (or to play Devil's Advocate, choose not to) take that Free Action, no Grapple attempt occurs, therefore it's not an automatic check that the creature has to take if it is, for example, fighting a creature whose mere contact with it would result nigh-instant death.
Of course, your silly ruling on that matter would lead to said creature with Grab ability always having to grapple such a deadly creature on AoO's (though it still wants to deal damage to the creature to kill it), and dying in 2-3 rounds. In this case, it leads to GM Shenanigans (or Rule 0, depending on how much of a goober the GM is).
If the ability has "specific permissions," show them to me. We must be reading two completely different abilities if there is a "specific permission" that allows the Grab ability to supersede the general rule of "Can only be taken on your turn" in regards to Free Actions.
And guess what? There are several subjects in the Combat Table that reference "Melee Attacks," and yet they do not consume Standard Actions, nor do they require Standard Actions to be taken to make those melee attacks. I guess the book is just lying to us as to what the definition of a Melee Attack is, then isn't it?
Of course, the most likely scenario is that those specific rules in regards to Melee Attacks are exceptions to the generic rule of "Melee Attacks are a Standard Action," of which AoO's fall under (the exception, not the generic). But letting players take AoO's, which you would classify as Standard Actions (since they're Melee Attacks, after all), outside your turn leads to the same kind of Shenanigans I mentioned previously, except on a much more cheap level.
Re-reading the Combat Maneuver clause, I suppose you are right in that it still goes back to it, since the clause refers to it replacing an attack, not an action. I'll concede that point.
**EDIT** Somehow hit the submit button early...
The Grab ability says it has to take it. "deals damage and attempts to start a grapple without provoking an attack of opportunity," is not unclear. This is basic reading and comprehension. The same thing keeps happening with the Free Action rules, too. I'm beginning to sense a trend...
The Grab ability says it takes the Grapple attempt as a free action (without provoking). When one cannot take a Free Action outside their turn, and the ability not providing a "specific permission" to let you do it outside your turn, it limits its applicability to work in your turn only.
Again, show me the "specific permission" that's hiding in this ability, because I don't see one on Paizo's official site, and all I'm getting from you is clipping the ability to twist it in your favor, and that you're misunderstanding my viewpoint completely.
I'm not against the factor that it should work outside your turn. If anything, I agree with it, since that appears to be the intent of the ability (to work whenever that creature makes an attack with the respective weapon). What I'm saying is that as it sits, the RAW doesn't support that interpretation.
|
|
One thing to note:
I see a lot of people saying "I don't see a rule that says I can't use it out of turn". But that doesn't matter.
A rule needs to be provided saying that you COULD use it out of turn, otherwise it is assumed that you can't.
Currently by RAW there's nothing supporting being able to use free actions on your opponents turn except this:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. "
But it's quite a stretch to assume that an attack of opportunity is taking an action "normally". On top of that it doesn't include the additional wording that immediate actions do:
"even if it's not your turn".
The language of the grab ability explicitly grants the creature a free action when it's attack hits. It grants that free action even if the attack hits when it's not the creatures turn. It's an exception to the rule (IMO the intended rule) that you can normally take free actions only on your turn.
There are plenty of abilities, feats, and spells in the game that let you break the general rules of the game.
I want to agree with this, as it's almost certainly the intent, but there are plenty of abilities that state that a character can do something as an immediate action under certain circumstances. Such abilities are understood to not work if the character does not, in fact, have an immediate action available to her.
|
|
Currently by RAW there's nothing supporting being able to use free actions on your opponents turn except this:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. "
But it's quite a stretch to assume that an attack of opportunity is taking an action "normally". On top of that it doesn't include the additional wording that immediate actions do:
"even if it's not your turn".
I would argue that there are few things more 'normal' than an AoO. With very few exceptions every combatant gets at least one. Every combat strategy must accommodate them, and numerous feats modify, manipulate, or eliminate them.
I'm not sure about the last section of your statement. "It" is unclear. If you mean free actions, it is clear you can take a Free Action when you also take an Immediate Action because that is another action being taken normally.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe there are only 3 things that count as doing an action normally: Standard, Move and Full-Round actions.
I don't believe you can do free actions outside your turn period unless explicitly stated, including while doing immediate actions.
Lastly I don't think that everyone believes that those free actions were even intended to work outside of turn, or this wouldn't be an issue that's come up a lot over the past several years. I certainly don't believe it myself, as it creates balance issues with a number of encounters. I think creatures with the grab ability are scaled appropriately just being able to do it on their turn. I certainly don't need more help killing players. :D
Anyway, I've said my arguments and the conversation is getting cyclically at this point. Going full circle though... hopefully we get more people to click on that FAQ button to have an official response to this issue once and for all, and avoid table variation (outside of house rules).
|
|
I believe there are only 3 things that count as doing an action normally: Standard, Move and Full-Round actions.
I cannot agree with this premise. I would very much like to know why these are normal, but other actions available to everyone and useable every turn are somehow not? It's kind of like calling children with blue eyes abnormal.
I don't believe you can do free actions outside your turn period unless explicitly stated, including while doing immediate actions.
That's not what the rules say, but okay.
Anyway, I've said my arguments and the conversation is getting cyclically at this point. Going full circle though... hopefully we get more people to click on that FAQ button to have an official response to this issue once and for all, and avoid table variation (outside of house rules).
Agreed, that would be nice.
I believe there are only 3 things that count as doing an action normally: Standard, Move and Full-Round actions.I cannot agree with this premise. I would very much like to know why these are normal, but other actions available to everyone and useable every turn are somehow not? It's kind of like calling children with blue eyes abnormal.
I don't believe you can do free actions outside your turn period unless explicitly stated, including while doing immediate actions.That's not what the rules say, but okay.
Anyway, I've said my arguments and the conversation is getting cyclically at this point. Going full circle though... hopefully we get more people to click on that FAQ button to have an official response to this issue once and for all, and avoid table variation (outside of house rules).Agreed, that would be nice.
To be honest, I believe the term "normal" is a tad disreputive, since one's "normal" is another's "crazy" (and this thread is proof of that, I suppose); a better term would be "universal," since regardless of whatever happens, creatures can always take X, Y, or Z during their turn.
And yes, the rules don't explicitly state they're limited to your turn only; the same can be said for Swift Actions (which, as I've said many times over, can be taken any time you can take a universal Free Action by RAW), Move Actions, Standard Actions, etc. But there becomes a point where allowing so much to work outside your turn that the definition and purpose of a character's turn becomes meaningless to the game in flavor, mechanics, and design.
It's so simple.
Make a list of non-normal actions. When you make that list, you cannot do a free action with those actions. Everything else will be a normal action, and those you can do a free action, regardless of who's turn it is. That's the rule after all.
The whole "speaking was specifically called out, thus it's clear you can't do free actions other than speaking outside your turn" response that about 20 people keep repeating don't get it. Speaking outside your turn was specifically called out not because of who's turn it was, but because speaking didn't accompany a normal action. Thus, it needed a specific rule. Again, it had nothing to do with who's turn it was. You can speak anytime, without a normal action to go with it. It's sad people took that and made the whole thing in their head that free actions were limited to their turn only except for speaking. Once they made that association, they just keep on repeating the same thing, over, and over, and over.
Normal actions can have free actions go with them. That's the rule.
So, we need a list of non-normal actions. That would solve the problem. I haven't seen that list. And as everyone keeps pointing out, the AoO isn't the action, the melee response allowed by the AoO is the action. Is it a normal action? Man, if melee attacks aren't normal actions, then this game really has some serious rules problems.
|
|
Would not the answer to the situation be "When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions." That would seem to be the general case.
Except that some of your entire round's worth of actions take place during other people's turn. That happens before you start buying feats. Responsive or triggered actions are the best example of this.
So it's cut and dry; RAW, melee attacks aren't an AoO, and that's all an AoO is. One single melee attack made at your highest BAB, which then says melee attacks are applied once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action (based on your BAB), or as an Attack of Opportunity, which we can then correlate to an Attack of Opportunity being no action required to take.
Hrm. Hold on there a moment.
A 'melee attack' isn't an action.
Actions allow you to make them. So, melee attacks can be the result of an action, but are not themselves an action. They are the result of an action.
So, what does an attack of opportunity result in? A melee attack.
So, why isn't an AoO a type of action? it seemed to be grouped with all the other types of actions which can grant one (or more) melee attacks.
Lets just accept that the real answer is what the design team finally says it is.
The design team probably doesn't (collectively) KNOW what it is yet.
Therefore no one knows what it is.
What is a rules questions forum for if not for the discussion of questions about the rules.Lets just accept that the real answer is what the design team finally says it is.
The design team probably doesn't (collectively) KNOW what it is yet.
Therefore no one knows what it is.
Discussion is one thing. Evidence is one thing. This.... is graging over absolutely nothing.
Discussion is one thing. Evidence is one thing. This.... is graging over absolutely nothing.What is a rules questions forum for if not for the discussion of questions about the rules.Lets just accept that the real answer is what the design team finally says it is.
The design team probably doesn't (collectively) KNOW what it is yet.
Therefore no one knows what it is.
Agreed. The topic is pretty much exhausted, and the cases have been made. Without design feedback or something pretty novel, we're in circle country.
Does anyone believe you can take a swift action when it is not your turn? If yes, I refer you to the rules on immediate actions (these are swift actions that are allowed outside of your turn, their existence is proof that swift actions cannot be take outside of your turn).
If no, then I refer you to the following:
Swift ActionsA swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Emphasis mine. Does anyone believe taking an AoO (which some are arguing allows you to take a free action) would allow you to take a swift action at the same time? If you believe you can take a free action during an AoO, then you must of necessity believe you can take a swift action during an AoO (because of the above), which I then again refer you to immediate actions.
(As much as AoO plus quickened fireball might be fun... no, I don't think so).
To many read this phrase
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
and misunderstand it. That sentence is merely a loose description of when you can take a free action. To many try to read it as a legally binding statement on free actions.
It isn't saying you can take a free action anytime you are taking another action. It is simply saying usually free actions are part of doing some other action (like drawing arrows when you make an attack with a bow). Or drawing a weapon when you have BAB +1 and take a move action. But it is not an open ended, "if I am acting in any fashion I can take any free action I want". And normally you take actions when it is your turn. Normally you do not take actions when it is not your turn. But free actions don't require you to be taking an action either. You could spend your turn doing nothing but free actions if you wanted to - and again normally that would happen on your turn, and only on your turn, and you are normally barred from doing so when it is not your turn.
However, RAI for trip/grappled attempts associated with an attack is almost certainly that in those instances the free action should really be a non-action (or a free action with a specific case of allowed outside of your turn).
Discussion is one thing. Evidence is one thing. This.... is graging over absolutely nothing.What is a rules questions forum for if not for the discussion of questions about the rules.Lets just accept that the real answer is what the design team finally says it is.
The design team probably doesn't (collectively) KNOW what it is yet.
Therefore no one knows what it is.
If you think the conversation is dead and over... stop reading the thread and move on. No need to try and censor folk.
The conversation could well go nowhere, but those who choose to particpate in it are doing so of their own free choice to do so, who are you to tell them they should stop? Or even imply it?
Anywho... back on topic.
Forbid Action, the spell, says:
You forbid the target a single course of action, which it avoids to the best of its ability. You may demand the target not take actions that fall into one of the following options.
Attack: The target cannot take any action that involves an attack roll, or uses a spell or ability that targets a foe or an area that includes a foe.
Cast: Target cannot cast spells or use spell-like abilities.
Communicate: The target cannot take any actions that allow it to communicate with anyone. This includes such acts as speaking, Bluff checks to pass secret messages, writing, and using telepathy. It does not prevent verbalizations made for purposes other than communication, such as command words or the verbal component of spellcasting.
Draw: Target cannot ready or prepare any item, weapon, component, or equipment.
Move: The target can take no act that would cause it to end up in a different location. The target does not resist being moved by others (and thus can be picked up or dragged, or can float along on a raft), but does not consciously attempt to move (including not directing a mount to move).
The target is free to take any actions not forbidden by the caster. For example, a target affected by this spell’s demand to not move is still free to cast spells, make attacks, or shout for help.
This seems to imply that "attack" is a type of action.
In the confused condition, there is a chart that indicates possible actions you take. Followed by the line
A confused creature who can't carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently.
Interestingly, one of the table "actions" listed is
Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).
So... that seems to further concrete the notion that an attack is a type of action.
Another odd place you find the correlation of attack = action is Perception skill description...
If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
It seems rather prevalent in all of the ancillary text that an attack is indeed an action. You find it all over the place.
Dimension Door has interesting implications, too.
After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn.
If an AoO isn't an action, then you could freely make any AoOs after you dimension door. That doesn't seem to be the intent here.
Just a few random things I noticed.
If you think the conversation is dead and over... stop reading the thread and move on. No need to try and censor folk.
Not trying to censor anyone. That's a rather silly concept in a message board anyway.
I'm just trying to point out the limits of knowledge: the answer rests with the design team - people not words.
Does anyone believe you can take a swift action when it is not your turn? If yes, I refer you to the rules on immediate actions (these are swift actions that are allowed outside of your turn, their existence is proof that swift actions cannot be take outside of your turn).
If no, then I refer you to the following:
Swift ActionsA swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Emphasis mine. Does anyone believe taking an AoO (which some are arguing allows you to take a free action) would allow you to take a swift action at the same time? If you believe you can take a free action during an AoO, then you must of necessity believe you can take a swift action during an AoO (because of the above), which I then again refer you to immediate actions.
(As much as AoO plus quickened fireball might be fun... no, I don't think so).
To many read this phrase
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
and misunderstand it. That sentence is merely a loose description of when you can take a free action. To many try to read it as a legally binding statement on free actions.
It isn't saying you can take a free action anytime you are taking another action. It is simply saying usually free actions are part of doing some other action (like drawing arrows when you make an attack with a bow). Or drawing a weapon when you have BAB +1 and take a move action. But it is not an open ended, "if I am acting in any fashion I can take any free action I want". And normally you take actions when it is your turn. Normally you do not take actions when it is not your turn. But free actions don't require you to be taking an action either. You could spend your turn doing nothing but free actions if you wanted to - and again normally that would happen on your turn, and only on your turn, and you are normally barred from doing so when it is not your turn.
However, RAI for trip/grappled attempts associated with an attack is almost certainly that in those instances the free action should really be a non-action (or a free action with a specific case of allowed outside of your turn).
No one has argued that you can just take free actions of any kind just because you want to.
Why are you still arguing against something no one is even saying?
|
|
Would not the answer to the situation be "When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions." That would seem to be the general case.
Except that some of your entire round's worth of actions take place during other people's turn. That happens before you start buying feats. Responsive or triggered actions are the best example of this.
So, are you saying that you do not believe that those cases are exceptions to the general rule and thus do not actually allow for actions out of turn, are you just rejecting the entire concept of general rules with specific exceptions, or is it some other thing?
Eh, I certainly can not force anyone to have a discussion on the subject. Personally I am wondering what ErrantPursuit's objection to the bit of text I presented happens to be and may as well stick around a while and see how that pans out.
I didn't want to get drawn into a conversation about "How would you write it differently" which is where I see this heading. Were this my RPG system many things would be different. This is Paizo's RPG and product message board, so I prefer to stay focused on that.
In that context, looking at your proposition as a definition of 'normal' action I disagree because the wording is poor.
- "When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
Imperative and inclusive language exacerbates arguments. Can you use 'Ready an Action' now? Is that normal? Bracing is a ready action that seems pretty normal. When it occurs, that's a readied standard action, but is it abnormal? Can I use Free Actions now?
Further, the phrasing compels the conclusion that nothing happens out of sequence, yet certain core rules were deliberately put in place to happen out sequence.
I have stated before in this discussion that I have a hard time defining something which is given to everyone and useable every round as anything but normal. I still feel that way. Every combatant receives an Attack of Opportunity and an Immediate Action. That pretty much defines normal. Also, those choices are available either explicitly or commonly on someone else's turn, which reasonably falls within the parameters of 'normal.' Another angle is that 'normal' defined as how something was designed to operate. In this case any time you are taking an Immediate Action or Attack of Opportunity you are using it normally, or within design parameters.
In the end, actions happening outside of your turn isn't abnormal, it's advanced.
|
|
No one has argued that you can just take free actions of any kind just because you want to.
Why are you still arguing against something no one is even saying?
I just stopped acknowledging those arguments. Nobody seems to be able to convince them that's not going to happen. The sky is falling and the heavens will burn.
Hrm. Hold on there a moment.A 'melee attack' isn't an action.
Actions allow you to make them. So, melee attacks can be the result of an action, but are not themselves an action. They are the result of an action.
So, what does an attack of opportunity result in? A melee attack.
So, why isn't an AoO a type of action? it seemed to be grouped with all the other types of actions which can grant one (or more) melee attacks.
Let's look at the rules behind an AoO:
"Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. "So you say that a melee attack isn't an action, by that logic a ranged attack also isn't an action, right? So a ranged attack can never provoke an attack of opportunity because, as per the AoO rules, only actions can provoke an attack of opportunity.
Eh, wait, as we all know every ranged attack in a full attack provokes, if you fire 3 arrows then you provoke 3 attack of opportunity. so it's not the full attack which provokes but each separate ranged attack as each action can only provoke once. As, according to the AoO rules, only actions provoke, each ranged attack is an action. So we've got ourselves a contradiction here.
The 'Table: Actions in Combat' table further reinforces this, it mentions what can and can't provoke, but as per the AoO rules, only actions can provoke, thus everything mentioned in this table must be an action. Note that the table clearly says that a full attack cannot provoke, but the full attack where 3 arrows were fired did provoke. That is because the full attack was a composite action, which contains several other actions (3 ranged attack actions in this case).
Thus each melee attack must be a separate action, because the alternative would result in the above contradiction. This means that the attack made as part of an attack of opportunity is also an action.
Yeah, that particular post should have had more question marks. It had sarcasm voicing in my mind when I wrote it, but... lol, didn't really come out clearly.
Attacks are most certainly types of actions.
If the other limitations do not apply and you can take a free action while taking another action at any point of time then:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn.I can start a speaking action whenever I want and make any number of free actions along with it?
Of course. Assuming your 'Speak' ability says you can do them.
But, as we all know, there are no such text for allowing other free actions in conjunction with or because of speaking.
The Grab ability however... you can take the free action it says you can when you hit with an attack, whenever that might happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This correlation may be a little bit of a stretch, but this is how I see "riders" that are "triggered" by attacks.
I believe they are automatically part of any attack that meets the requirement of the skill. The flaming damage from a weapon, grab or trip all work this way, IMHO.
The correlation that I hinted at above is the use of the Perception skill.
"Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
So, when used normally, Perception is a move action. Otherwise it is whenever there is a trigger. It never states what type of action when there is a trigger, just that it happens.
I believe the addition of the words "as a free action" to the rider effects in discussion are to clarify that they are not standard actions or required to be part of a full attack or the like. They are simply additional, free attacks based on the original attack.
If all of these skills were only usable on the bearers turn, I think that limit would be more clear than, "as a free action." I believe the intent is that it is described as a free action with the idea that free actions do not take from your limited resources. Not that you may only add the rider to some of your attacks.
I also believe that the free actions are only available due to the trigger that is clearly listed as the attack. A ruling in favor of riders during AoO would not give credence to the "willy-nilly" use of free actions when it is not someone's turn.
This came up in my game this week and we all agreed with the above. YMMV.