| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is a VERY strange part of the rules currently.
The crux of the issue is, by RAW an attack of opportunity is not an action at all. This peculiarity makes a situation where the "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally" rule does NOT apply.
More confusingly, the devs have decided to piecemeal "whitelist" certain free actions as being allowed on AoOs (reloading in the Snap Shot FAQ, and now grab, trip, etc. in the new FAQ) instead of declaring that an AoO is indeed an action and therefore free actions are allowed.
As it stands, except for the explicitly mentioned free actions (reloading, grab, trip, pull, push) you cannot take free actions on an AoO. This leads to bizarre results like the fact that you can't discharge a spell storing weapon when you hit with an AoO, or that you can't use the Enforcer or Cornugon Smash feats with an AoO, or you can't start raging during an AoO.
|
Swift actions can't be taken out of turn.
That how it usually goes.
With the FAQ about certain triggered free actions, being available as part of an AoO, it may be, being that as Swift actions can be taken any time you could take a free action, that perhaps, certain Swift actions, can be taken as part of an AoO.
|
I believe that they handled that FAQ poorly. They say they are going to Errata it, hopefully they are going to change the language of the listed abilities from "free action" to a "no action" or not even list an action rather than try to tackle changing the functionality of a free action.
Clearly the intent is that swift and free actions are to be done only on your turn. There are just certain abilities that need to be rewritten to properly conform to that paradigm.
I think the obvious "common sense" solution is to allow free/swift actions on AoOs. It makes no sense that you can use a spell storing dagger when you hit someone "on your turn" (a completely metagame concept) but you can't use it on an AoO.
I have yet to hear a single problem that would arise from allowing free/swift actions on an AoO. Until someone can come up with a reasonable reason not to allow it, I would certainly let it fly in any game I ran.
But RAW right now appears to be that only "whitelisted" free actions can be used that way.
I think the obvious "common sense" solution is to allow free/swift actions on AoOs. It makes no sense that you can use a spell storing dagger when you hit someone "on your turn" (a completely metagame concept) but you can't use it on an AoO.
I have yet to hear a single problem that would arise from allowing free/swift actions on an AoO. Until someone can come up with a reasonable reason not to allow it, I would certainly let it fly in any game I ran.
But RAW right now appears to be that only "whitelisted" free actions can be used that way.
The biggest one is the 2-hand reach weapon take an AoO as they move through the threatened area, and free action release 1 hand to threaten with cestus/armor spikes/spiked gauntlet/whatever for when they are now adjacent to you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I cast quickened Fireball as part of my AoO with my dagger. Sure I'm probably going to miss with my dagger but now it opens up the ability to use a swift action."
Crap like that will spring up everywhere with a blanket ruling like that one Rufus. These things need to be taken on a case by case basis.
Free actions, I'll give you, not a whole lot of harm there. But a swift action on an AoO is dangerous.
Does wielding a two-handed weapon prevent you from attacking with armor spikes?
Does wielding a two-handed weapon prevent you from attacking with armor spikes?No. Why is that relevant?
That was in reply to Tarantula, who advanced grip-switching as a potentially abusive use of a free action. If grip-switching is not necessary to attack with the armor spikes, his point is not really relevant.
The thing about the quickened spell is that it prevents you from casting one on your own turn. Best case scenario is you get an effective boosted initiative for that one action only. And of course, you also have to cast defensively if you don't want to provoke yourself.
I suppose something like using a quickened toppling magic missile when you have reach to trip someone before they can reach you could be abusive.
Does wielding a two-handed weapon prevent you from attacking with armor spikes?No. Why is that relevant?That was in reply to Tarantula, who advanced grip-switching as a potentially abusive use of a free action. If grip-switching is not necessary to attack with the armor spikes, his point is not really relevant.
The thing about the quickened spell is that it prevents you from casting one on your own turn. Best case scenario is you get an effective boosted initiative for that one action only. And of course, you also have to cast defensively if you don't want to provoke yourself.
I suppose something like using a quickened toppling magic missile when you have reach to trip someone before they can reach you could be abusive.
Sorry, nix armor spikes in my example. Still plenty of abuse possible. They could make the reach AoO free action let go, free action draw non-reach weapon with quick draw.
Quickened spells don't provoke.
Would you allow them to take a 5' step also as part of the AoO action? Its listed as a non-action that you can take if you haven't actually had movement this round yet.
Quickened vanish/invisibility and 5'step would negate almost any attacks on a caster.
Would you allow them to take a 5' step also as part of the AoO action? Its listed as a non-action that you can take if you haven't actually had movement this round yet.
Quickened vanish/invisibility and 5'step would negate almost any attacks on a caster.
Ok, these are good points. I withdraw my argument that swift actions should be allowed.
Free actions, however, still seem to make way more sense to allow than to not allow. I'm having trouble getting past the spell storing weapon/rage/Cornugon Smash restrictions, it seems just extremely artificial and metagamey to me.
|
I believe that they handled that FAQ poorly.
As the creator of the thread addressing "that FAQ", I can say that "they" handled it perfectly.
I asked a question about Trip, Grab, Push and Pull being used on an Attack of Opportunity (and indirectly referenced Rock Catching).
They answered the question I posed, and even addressed Rock Catching.
That is the FAQ system working as intended.
If you wish another, different, separate question to be answered (such as spell storing, or some such), then I suggest you begin by making a thread asking that particular question.
In X number of Fridays maybe you'll see a response.
While they directly addressed your question, Nefreet, which is great. They did so by only addressing the specific abilities you asked about, and leaving all the others in this floating limbo of "probably should work but because the FAQ said only XYZ they don't right now."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't allow all swift actions out of turn, but I believe this is specifically about activating one that is triggered directly from the AOO, such as in the original enforcer / cornugon smash + hurtful scenario.
Say we have a character with Power Attack, Cornugon Smash and Hurtful
· AOO is provoked
- Attack with Power Attack
- Cornugon Smash triggers a free intimidate on the successful Power Attack*
- Hurtful triggers a swift action attack after successful demoralisation**
*This one seems pretty in line with the grab/trip/etc. in the FAQ, but isn't allowed as written
** This one is definitely not allowed by RAW, and it's a lot more questionable in game balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you allow them to take a 5' step also as part of the AoO action? Its listed as a non-action that you can take if you haven't actually had movement this round yet.
Quickened vanish/invisibility and 5'step would negate almost any attacks on a caster.
Ok, these are good points. I withdraw my argument that swift actions should be allowed.
Free actions, however, still seem to make way more sense to allow than to not allow. I'm having trouble getting past the spell storing weapon/rage/Cornugon Smash restrictions, it seems just extremely artificial and metagamey to me.
Agree that spell storing and cornugon smash should be allowed on AoO, so house rule - easy.
Rage on AoO is unnecessary, it only shows up if you are taking an AoO in a surprise round because you have combat reflexes and have not had your own turn yet. Otherwise you've had a turn already, why didn't you just rage then? Read: the rage on AoO is a straw man.
Spell storing is almost as niche as the rage on AoO, usually if you have a spell you want delivered on attack, you probably are just as happy to take it during your normal attack routine as during your AoO (some niche cases might be some form of movement impeding spell triggered when an enemy tries to flee or something).
No. I think spell storing should be allowed on an AoO, but I think it is also a very niche situation (just not as niche as rage on AoO).
Personally I'd allow spell critical to trigger casting of a spell as part of an AoO under the context that it is essentially cast as an immediate action. Meaning, even if you get multiple AoO's and get multiple critical hits you could only cast ONE spell that way, and it would use up your swift action for your coming turn. (But that of course is simply how I'd run it - RAW wouldn't allow it as you can't use the swift outside of your turn).
|
|
I believe that they handled that FAQ poorly.As the creator of the thread addressing "that FAQ", I can say that "they" handled it perfectly.
I asked a question about Trip, Grab, Push and Pull being used on an Attack of Opportunity (and indirectly referenced Rock Catching).
They answered the question I posed, and even addressed Rock Catching.
That is the FAQ system working as intended.
If you wish another, different, separate question to be answered (such as spell storing, or some such), then I suggest you begin by making a thread asking that particular question.
In X number of Fridays maybe you'll see a response.
That's all well and good, but "that FAQ" has resulted in more questions than answers. Additionally, since your thread was answered they are very unlikely to answer another one with nearly identical wording but with a more open ended question. They addressed the specific feats and features you asked about which is great but opened up one hell of a can of worms in the process by leaving the rest of the feats and features with similar problems unanswered. As a result the "free action" is currently in flux with no one truly knowing exactly what they do. If they had just simply stated that "free actions can only be done on your turn with the exception of these listed abilities..." or "we will be changing those listed abilities and any others with this issue to 'no actions' in the next Errata" that would have cleared up everything. Instead they answered your question by addressing your examples rather than the actual question itself.
It's actually something I greatly dislike that people on this forum do when arguing is addressing your examples rather than the point itself.So yeah, that was poorly handled by "them".
Rage on AoO is unnecessary, it only shows up if you are taking an AoO in a surprise round because you have combat reflexes and have not had your own turn yet. Otherwise you've had a turn already, why didn't you just rage then? Read: the rage on AoO is a straw man.Just so we're clear my PFS character is a reach dwarven barbarian with combat reflexes. It's anything but a strawman considering it's worth a huge amount of bonus damage (+8 and 2d6 and +2 to hit).
It's very serious to me.
Spell storing is almost as niche as the rage on AoO, usually if you have a spell you want delivered on attack, you probably are just as happy to take it during your normal attack routine as during your AoO (some niche cases might be some form of movement impeding spell triggered when an enemy tries to flee or something).Again we have a cleric with reach using a spell storing weapon who loves to use it. Why should this be considered a corner case any more than archery? They are equal styles and supported by the rules. Just because a style is unusual doesn't make them niche. In fact in our area reach weapons are more common than regular 2 handed weapons.
I'm not saying it never occurs, just that it's use is going to be extremely rare.
With your combat reflexes barbarian, how many times has your character been surprised (but the enemy isn't) while having his reach weapon in hand (instead of sheathed) and an enemies surprise round action has been to charge your barbarian (usually a very bad tactical choice to charge into the enemy, even if during a surprise round - instead of positioning yourself in an advantageous location while the enemy isn't moving). And for those few cases it happens, guess what, getting surprised still has some consequences :).
Likewise, with the spell storing weapon cleric, how often has it been important the spell go off during the AoO as opposed to just waiting till the cleric's turn when he/she attacks normally and delivers the spell? This is variable dependent on the spell being stored as I noted, but usually I see damage output spells used in spell storing weapons - in those cases whether the damage happens during the AoO or the attackers normal turn usually makes no real difference.
|
|
The FAQ is actually clear and concise, in that it answers the specific examples presented.
So, these other cases, will need to be addressed, as well.
I too, am glad they decided to go for a case by case basis, instead of some foolish sweeping FAQ(errata) that alters the game, creates more confusion, and has devastating effects, that actually causes other parts of the game to no longer function, and have to be errata'd themselves.
It doesn't even touch on unwritten rules.
It's a good FAQ.
To me it is simple, if a free action is normally part of another action (example: drawing an arrow when shooting a bow) then it shouldn't be a free action and should just be rolled into the action.
I don't even think about this when it comes to AoOs.
1) Is a Grab attempt part of the attack? Yes? Ok, you can use it during an AoO.
2) Is drawing an arrow part of the attack? Yes? Ok, you can use it during an AoO.
3) Is becoming enraged part of the attack? No? Ok, you cannot use it during an AoO.
|
I see that people is citing only a piece of teh rules, while the compelte text is:
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.
and
Swift Actions
A 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.
While saying "You can perform a single swift action and only during your turn" would have been clearer, it is clear that you can make swift actions only during your turn, as the immediate actions are those that you can make when it isn't your turn.
I find difficult to grasp how you can equate allowing some more fee action while it isn't your turn to allowing swift actions when it isn't your turn.