Well we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm of the opinion the words on the page mean what they say, "pick up" means the action it states. I'm not going to second guess the RAW when it is printed using specific language.
Feel free to FAQ as always, I don't see the need. We have a precedent for the the exact same situation and a FAQ indicating that it works that way as is the intention. You think it shouldn't work that way, that is fine. Show us some rules or FAQ to challenge what we already have instead of stating your opinion as fact. There really isn't much reason to go in circles at this point about it.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
It also says "automatically". To me, that is the wording which creates the intent that the pick up is not the standard "pick up action" because it is automatic. The sentence would make just as much sense as, "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may pick up the item dropped." The word automatically must mean something, otherwise it shouldn't be in the sentence. I believe that is because it doesn't provoke, due to the precedence from how disarm worked previously.
Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.
See FAQ
Eh, it's official I guess, but still doesn't make sense. I could see it working that way if the caster held the spell and fired it off in a round after he cast it.
At any rate hopefully if I ever play a caster in a group that runs that way, the foe doesn't have combat reflexes.
Moving on, an attacker disarming while unarmed already prompts an AoO unless you have the Improved Disarm feat and the disarm attempt is done at a -4 penalty. It says that if you successfully disarm the foe, that you can automatically take the weapon. It seems the intent is that the attacker automatically snatches the weapon straight from the defender without excess issues, not that he stoops down to pick it up and prompt AoO's after the fact.
It's been "official" for almost two years now... And it sometimes surprises me how many people arguing rules questions aren't very well versed in what the rules actually are. Not to say we don't all make mistakes, but I would like to think that people are trying to be helpful instead of just argue what they think it should be in the Rules forum. This isn't an attack, I'm just trying to point out a good portion of this thread was unnecessary back and forth due to erroneous information.
No we don't know what the intent is, you would LIKE the intent to be that. None of us having this discussion helped hash out the rules when they implemented changes from 3.5. Intent is completely lost to any of us, what we do have are the written words in the rules book and FAQs on same type situations. You may not like the rules we have but that doesn't change what they say.
Indeed we all make mistakes or have table variation. Our table has never punished a person twice for what amounts to one move. However that example isn't what matters in this thread.
I'm not arguing to argue. I read the intent of the language different then you. Please don't try to interpret my goals as malicious.
As for the disarm and it's wording/intent, I did faq it. I read it as automatically allowing an attacker to grab a weapon, forgoing the AoO. Your view differs.
Hopefully we'll get an official word on it. Until then take care and enjoy your gaming.
Indeed we all make mistakes or have table variation. Our table has never punished a person twice for what amounts to one move. However that example isn't what matters in this thread.
Moves only don't provoke more than once because they specifically state they don't. Also actions taken can only provoke ones, but taking multiple actions can provoke multiple times.
Or does your group not have ranged attacks provoke an AoO for every ranged attack made as part of a full-attack? I mean, its only 1 action right?
Indeed we all make mistakes or have table variation. Our table has never punished a person twice for what amounts to one move. However that example isn't what matters in this thread.Moves only don't provoke more than once because they specifically state they don't. Also actions taken can only provoke ones, but taking multiple actions can provoke multiple times.
Or does your group not have ranged attacks provoke an AoO for every ranged attack made as part of a full-attack? I mean, its only 1 action right?
We do prompt AoO's for multiple ranged attacks during a full attack. We however do not prompt twice for spells that take a standard action. As I play an archer, maybe I should annoy the sorcerer by questioning it.
Well we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm of the opinion the words on the page mean what they say, "pick up" means the action it states. I'm not going to second guess the RAW when it is printed using specific language.
Feel free to FAQ as always, I don't see the need. We have a precedent for the the exact same situation and a FAQ indicating that it works that way as is the intention. You think it shouldn't work that way, that is fine. Show us some rules or FAQ to challenge what we already have instead of stating your opinion as fact. There really isn't much reason to go in circles at this point about it.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.It also says "automatically". To me, that is the wording which creates the intent that the pick up is not the standard "pick up action" because it is automatic. The sentence would make just as much sense as, "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may pick up the item dropped." The word automatically must mean something, otherwise it shouldn't be in the sentence. I believe that is because it doesn't provoke, due to the precedence from how disarm worked previously.
How it worked before? 3.5? Has absolutely no bearing on anything in PFRPG, at all, ever. Been through that many many times in previous threads since the beginning of PFRPG. It isn't a precedent at all, it doesn't apply and is completely and totally irrelevant. The only RAW precedent we have for PFRPG is casting spells and the freebie attack that it can provide. Even though the attack isn't the "standard action" one, it still provides an AoO from opponents who threaten.
This means two things, the action itself is what provokes, no matter what the action cost. Also, that the actions are still distinct entities, so both trigger AoO and are not covered under the "doesn't provoke multiple times" clause.
That is the only relevant precedent we have for PFRPG.
Incidentally, it isn't only the "pick up" of an item that triggers an AoO. It is also the "manipulation" of an item as per the FAQ. So unless you are arguing that changing the possession of the now disarmed weapon isn't "manipulating" the weapon in a threatened area, it would still be a AoO'able action.
Agreed, this doesn't appear to be the standard 'move action' to pick up an item, since you can 'automatically' pick up the item even if you don't have a move action available.
As I've stated repeatedly, the action cost of the action is completely irrelevant. A ranged attack made as a standard action provokes, as does a ranged attack made as a free action after casting a spell. The FAQ states this in no uncertain terms.
Regardless of whether picking up or manipulating the disarmed weapon was done as a move action or free action or "automatically" the action itself is what causes the AoO. You do it, you provoke attacks unless an exemption was called for it. Disarm has no such exemptions or clauses.
I agree that the disarm ability could have "without provoking" added onto the automatic pickup. As written it can be interpreted that you could disarm and make them drop it, and then would provoke for automatically picking it up. I think the "automatic" part is saying "as part of the same action and without provoking" but as I said, that is my interpretation because it makes sense in the context of disarming someone with your hands free.
Disarm automatically has immunity to AoO baked in. You can't make an Attack of Opportunity unarmed.
Unless your opponent has a natural weapon, a weapon in a second hand, or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, they cannot make an AoO against you for grabbing the weapon you just took from them.
I agree that the disarm ability could have "without provoking" added onto the automatic pickup. As written it can be interpreted that you could disarm and make them drop it, and then would provoke for automatically picking it up. I think the "automatic" part is saying "as part of the same action and without provoking" but as I said, that is my interpretation because it makes sense in the context of disarming someone with your hands free.Disarm automatically has immunity to AoO baked in. You can't make an Attack of Opportunity unarmed.
Unless your opponent has a natural weapon, a weapon in a second hand, or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, they cannot make an AoO against you for grabbing the weapon you just took from them.
Which happens a lot. Plus picking up an item provokes from anyone who threatens you, not just from the disarm target. So you might have taken Bob's sword from him, but Bill next to him would get a swing on you for having picked up the sword.
Agreed, this doesn't appear to be the standard 'move action' to pick up an item, since you can 'automatically' pick up the item even if you don't have a move action available.As I've stated repeatedly, the action cost of the action is completely irrelevant. A ranged attack made as a standard action provokes, as does a ranged attack made as a free action after casting a spell. The FAQ states this in no uncertain terms.
Regardless of whether picking up or manipulating the disarmed weapon was done as a move action or free action or "automatically" the action itself is what causes the AoO. You do it, you provoke attacks unless an exemption was called for it. Disarm has no such exemptions or clauses.
And yet casting a quickened spell does not provoke an AoO while casting normally does. So clearly there are instances where changing the action used matter. Similarly, with the feat 'snap shot' you can make ranged attacks as AoOs without provoking.
The 'exemption' is the word 'automatically'. In fact, one could argue that you're not using any action at all, free, swift, or otherwise since disarm does not say 'you may use a free action to pick up', it says 'automatically' as in it just happens. If something happens 'automatically' instead of as the result of an 'action', then I don't see how you can argue that it provokes at all.
Well look at that, it is a stated exception for casting a spell. There is specific wording indicating you don't provoke. Clearly wording is there so it doesn't provoke. Clearly we have a FAQ indicating unless otherwise stated, an action performed as a differing action cost DOES provoke of it would normally.
Clearly you are grasping at things to make a point, but are unable to grab anything that is relevant or parallel to the rules in question.Again. No such wording exists for the picking up of the weapon. There is nothing, anywhere, stating you don't provoke. That is what we need, rules wise, to say "look this doesn't provoke," actual wording to that effect.
It provokes because the rules state when you manipulate or pick something up, you provoke when threatened. Disarm says you "pick up" so we go look at what doing that action normally does, as there are no exemptions or exceptions stated. "Automatically" isn't a defined "exemption" by any means.
If you don't like it, hit FAQ. Maybe they will look it over and flesh it out for us.
It provokes because the rules state when you manipulate or pick something up, you provoke when threatened. Disarm says you "pick up" so we go look at what doing that action normally does, as there are no exemptions or exceptions stated. "Automatically" isn't a defined "exemption" by any means.
Then why is the word automatically in the sentence? They could save word count by simply deleting it, with no change in meaning if the pickup provokes.
If you can point to this FAQ I will agree. If not I believe the action type DOES make a difference.Well look at that, it is a stated exception for casting a spell. There is specific wording indicating you don't provoke. Clearly wording is there so it doesn't provoke. Clearly we have a FAQ indicating unless otherwise stated, an action performed as a differing action cost DOES provoke of it would normally.
The FAQ that has been linked and mentioned repeatedly that states that the free action ranged attack made as part of casting a spell still provokes an attack of opportunity as normal?
Ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Ranged attacks made as free actions provoke attacks of opportunity still, per the FAQ. The precedent has been set that alterations of action cost does not alter the susceptibility to AoOs for performing the action.
Feel free to read this thread, and click the link to read the FAQ yourself. There are at least 2 instances of the link above.