Does anyone actually rule that you can't use grab on an AoO? I've never seen it. Is there actual disagreement on this or is this a perceived problem?
The GM for my Rise group doesn't allow it.
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.
And that makes sense.
The problem is that the Devs used a defined game term to mean something completely different. It's like the phrase "Morale Bonus" from the Courageous property: Morale Bonus, for it to apply to Fear effects only, requires that "Morale Bonus" be taken literally for that to make sense, instead of the otherwise defined game term, which is a certain type of bonus modified to a specific statistic, such as "Morale Bonus to X, Y, and Z."
The same problem is present here. If we are to assume that a Free Action is to be taken only during your turn, then by rights one could never take that Free Action to initiate a Grapple outside their turn. It is only by either circumventing the definition into a more literal sense (i.e. it takes no effort or action consumption to do), or removing the "as a Free Action" phrase entirely that we could reach the ideal that it would work outside your turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All 3 if it wants.Hi James,
what is an Otyugh able to do on aoo's?
There are tree possibilities:1. Aoo
2. Aoo + grab + constrict
3. Aoo + grab + constrict + release
Wow, the release part does indicate that, doesn't it?
YIKES!!
I wonder if JJ had his coffee yet?
That would imply you could free action change grip when it wasn't your turn as well, and this whole discussion would be turned upside down.
Finally, somebody gets the Two-Handed Martial shenanigans I was talking about.
But hey, that just means I can roll up a Two-Handed Martial, take Crane Wing and Riposte, take off my hand to fulfill the free hand requirement when an attack comes my way, deflect it, then reapply my deflecting hand to make the attack of opportunity with my Two-Handed Weapon.
All the while being rules legal according to JJ.
I didn't think any of that was in play at all until the "release" was added to this discussion. AoO + grab + constrict would not lead me there.
I strongly believe the release was an oversight on JJ's part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JJ isn't a "rules guy." You have to take his interpretations to mean that's how he'd run his games. They're not representative of the intent of the rules for the game in general.
Since you can take swift actions whenever you can take a free action, that means you could use one of those when it wasn't your turn as well right?
No. That's why immediate actions exist.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't think any of that was in play at all until the "release" was added to this discussion. AoO + grab + constrict would not lead me there.
I strongly believe the release was an oversight on JJ's part.
Meh. Not so much an oversight as it is a willignness to make a ruling and then change it if a player finds a way to abuse the ruling, which a GM HAS TO BE COMFORTABLE DOING. Even if that ruling is, according to our books or erratta or whatever, legal. Your game is your game, not ours, and if players are abusing rules, you as the GM get to make changes.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in an argument about the game's action economy. Make the right choice for your game... AKA the choice that makes your game fun.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in an argument ...
Not interested in an argument? But I thought that is what the 'Rules Forum' was all about!
Well, I just don't know how to... well, yeah.
I think I will just sit this out for a while.
|
So I'm seeing pretty definite indications that at least some people at Paizo have taken it for granted that AoO allow you to take free actions, and the big question now is, what exactly are the shenanigans we are supposed to be worried about?
The argument, as I understand it, is that allowing any Free Action outside of your turn is incredibly abusive because many free actions can change your state (Armed/disarmed, penalties to hit prone vs standing, holding in one hand or two, these are just a few places issues come up.) I never felt it was relevant to this discussion because we were looking at an ability which required an explicit free action to happen upon a successful attack.
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
So any time you take an action you can make one or more free actions. An attack of opportunity an action. So you could grab as fee action though the GM may rule that is not reasonable on an attack of opportunity. So basically it's up to the GM. I think makes sense that attack that grabs would be able to grab you are attack of opportunity.
|
|
The other is that the restriction of Free Actions being on your turn only still applies, since nothing says otherwise.
I don't consider this a valid argument, since Free Actions are actually not defined that way.
One of the arguments being presented, however, is that an Attack of Opportunity is not considered to be an Action, so you can't combine a free action with an AoO.
This is the one that has no resolution in the current rules structure. Interpretations legitimately go both ways. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to lend credence in both directions, too. In end you have to separately implied answers. Hence, hundreds of posts about it.
The other is that the restriction of Free Actions being on your turn only still applies, since nothing says otherwise.I don't consider this a valid argument, since Free Actions are actually not defined that way.
One of the arguments being presented, however, is that an Attack of Opportunity is not considered to be an Action, so you can't combine a free action with an AoO.This is the one that has no resolution in the current rules structure. Interpretations legitimately go both ways. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to lend credence in both directions, too. In end you have to separately implied answers. Hence, hundreds of posts about it.
I will again point out that yes, you are correct in that RAW, Free Actions don't make that stipulation. Then again, so do none of the other action types. The purpose of a "Turn" or a "Round" in a given combat has no meaning if it doesn't matter when you can or cannot take actions, or when they become resolved, since by RAW it's not defined if you can or cannot take so-and-so actions only during your turn, or if they are resolved, before, during, or after the action you take, or even after the combat passes. Of course, the intent of when you can and cannot take Actions are quite obvious via precedents of certain action types, as well as text stating subject matter being usable "even when it's not your turn."
Plus, if such precedents are not being upheld, and simply ignored, that's what leads to the shenanigans I was talking about before, if not even more or other kinds of shenanigans. If you like shenanigans at your table, fine, but whether such shenanigans are intended by the rules (of which is highly unlikely to say the least; at most it's untolerable), it becomes a completely different matter and creates quite the stretch of balance between creatures.
|
Just wanna throw this out there:
For simplicity sake, one of my DMs allows any swift, immediate or free action that specifically states that it is used immediately after an attack to be allowed on a AoO.
This includes grab, but exclude changing hand grips, for example.
Also, something like Kirin Strike could be used, according to his rulings.
The other GM's haven't had to deal with a situation this nit picky.
I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate JJ's stance on the Otyugh's AoO into something like, "I can take whatever free actions I want during an AoO". I wouldn't have expected the free action for the release to be allowed, but at least it is something directly related to the grapple which was established via Grab.
For Crane Wing I think you'd have to meet the requirement for using it when you're attacked. Similarly, to make an AoO with a two handed weapon I think you'd have to be wielding the weapon with both hands and threatening so you would qualify to make an AoO with it. That could probably be its own thread though.
Anyhow, I'm glad that somebody from Paizo weighed in even just unofficially.
Does anyone actually rule that you can't use grab on an AoO? I've never seen it. Is there actual disagreement on this or is this a perceived problem?The GM for my Rise group doesn't allow it.
Just be sure to remind him of that the next time he has a monster follow up a successful opportunity attack with its associated combat maneuver such as a grab or a trip.
I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate JJ's stance on the Otyugh's AoO into something like, "I can take whatever free actions I want during an AoO". I wouldn't have expected the free action for the release to be allowed, but at least it is something directly related to the grapple which was established via Grab.
For Crane Wing I think you'd have to meet the requirement for using it when you're attacked. Similarly, to make an AoO with a two handed weapon I think you'd have to be wielding the weapon with both hands and threatening so you would qualify to make an AoO with it. That could probably be its own thread though.
Anyhow, I'm glad that somebody from Paizo weighed in even just unofficially.
Wanna throw another wrench into the gears?
Try to make sense of this...
At 7th level, a kensai applies his Intelligence modifier as well as his Dexterity modifier on initiative rolls (minimum 0). A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, and may draw his favored weapon as a free action as part of taking an attack of opportunity.
The questions:
How can you make an AoO if you don't threaten?
How can you draw as a free action as part of an AoO?
The biggest one is that first one. Does that even make sense to anyone?? How can you draw the weapon that you needed to already be weilding to qualify for an AoO as a part of taking said AoO? Ugh >.<
I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate JJ's stance on the Otyugh's AoO into something like, "I can take whatever free actions I want during an AoO". I wouldn't have expected the free action for the release to be allowed, but at least it is something directly related to the grapple which was established via Grab.
For Crane Wing I think you'd have to meet the requirement for using it when you're attacked. Similarly, to make an AoO with a two handed weapon I think you'd have to be wielding the weapon with both hands and threatening so you would qualify to make an AoO with it. That could probably be its own thread though.
Anyhow, I'm glad that somebody from Paizo weighed in even just unofficially.
Wanna throw another wrench into the gears?
Try to make sense of this...
At 7th level, a kensai applies his Intelligence modifier as well as his Dexterity modifier on initiative rolls (minimum 0). A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, and may draw his favored weapon as a free action as part of taking an attack of opportunity.The questions:
How can you make an AoO if you don't threaten?
How can you draw as a free action as part of an AoO?The biggest one is that first one. Does that even make sense to anyone?? How can you draw the weapon that you needed to already be weilding to qualify for an AoO as a part of taking said AoO? Ugh >.<
Simple, you have to be able to threaten while unarmed. If you don't threaten while unarmed; then you don't provoke AoO.
Well, the odd thing is that you draw it as part of the AoO. So.. I mean, not only do you have to already be threatening, but also mid attack before you even draw the weapon.
So, even if you are threatening, say with 'armed' unarmed attacks, the AoO has to be an unarmed attack. Because that is your only option until you use the AoO to attack, and... then draw your weapon.
It just seems, silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Kensai ability seems a lot cooler if the Kensai can make the AoO with his favored weapon and do so even if he's not threatening with anything else. Having katana kensai wear spiked gauntlets so they're always threatening doesn't help make the game better.
Perhaps JJ's responses earlier in the thread show that we're too often slaves of RAW and precedent and should learn to be more adaptive. Unfortunately it is often difficult to gain consensus within a group about what is or isn't balanced and sensible. Letting the Kensai's AoO ability work in a thematic way lots of players would expect it to work doesn't seem like a big stretch to me though.
I wonder how much faqs requests are needed to provoke an official question response?
*cast summon golem IX* *dance to provoke an oqr*
|
I wonder how much faqs requests are needed to provoke an official question response?
The Golem works in mysterious ways.
THIS thread has 262 FAQ hits, and I created it a month ago.
THIS thread had 106 FAQ hits, and it was answered after about a month.
THIS thread had only 10 FAQ hits, and it was answered after 6 months.
THIS thread is almost a year old, and it has 38 FAQ hits.
I'd say there's probably no rhyme or reason to answering an FAQ request. The Developers are busy people. Some questions require more discussion and research before issuing a final answer. Other questions just aren't important enough for immediate attention. And still others are really best left up to GM fiat, even in PFS.
I really hope this one gets answered, as it is a frequently asked question, and there are clearly two different POVs. But really all we can do is continue to discuss it and hope an answer gets handed down sooner rather than later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Press button to cross crosswalk
Here is another one who wants to know the answer:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r8kb?When-can-you-use-a-free-action-or-a-five- foot
|
|
FAQ'ed I think it's pretty clear you can take a free action as part of an AOO since we have official FAQ saying you can. (Snapshot) which implies you can take free actions on not your turn by being an official FAQ.
If you already can take free actions in AOOs, then there won't be a need for the Snapshot FAQ in the first place right?
Therefore the "norm" is that you can't.
That FAQ specifically calls out for snapshot.
Still, a FAQ on free actions during AOOs or out of turn, would be greatly appreciated.