Don't forget the "while taking another action" line in there--what action are you going to take and feint your opponent into thinking you're moving to get him to attack you so you can do something else? I wouldn't allow that at all for what it's worth.
I see what you're saying - it needs to be part of the move action. And thank you for pointing that exact wording out. So, yes it is a move action that is starting.
That being said, my point is the same. What ends up happening - regardless of what was declared - is not much to me. I was really just using the concept of a GM deciding what is "free enough" to be a free action, and apply it to the "started is spent" argument. As in - as the rules stand now, the GM gets to decide since there is no wording that suggests either way is right.
Started does not automatically equal spent to me. I rule attacking and provoking with a bow the same way - start to attack, bow get's knocked out of your hands, you still have time to do something that is a standard action. Since there is no rules around exactly how much of your bow attack you (and hence, how much time you spent) went through before it was knocked away - both ways of determining actions spent or not are equally valid.
For the bow attack example - take the definition of Ranged Attack. The bow is knocked out of my hands with an AoO. I could say that I never ended up shooting, therefor I didn't do the definition of a ranged attack and therefor I never did a standard action. And that's using RAW.
When you declare that you are moving out of a square, some things happen that are not part of your move action. One is that you (players) must check for any threatening AoOs. If allowed, and a character wishes, the AoO is resolved. Then the original player gets to continue his turn. He does not even have to continue with the original action that was planned. Say he was going to charge another enemy. Now he realizes that he doesn't have enough hit points left to survive lowering his AC and putting himself at risk to that enemy's reach weapon during the charge. He is not forced to continue that full-round action, nor does he lose all his actions for the round.
I honestly didn't really understand your charge scenario, but you take the action, and you complete it if you can. Charge is a full round action, so that movement would have been from a charge in progress. If you charge and a readied action to pull out a reach weapon happens, it doesn't matter if it was just before you got there, or when you did your first 5 feet of a full 60 ft of movement and someone hit you on the way even, you're dealing with it.
Is the logic really that the world will explode if the AoO happens before the trigger yet the world will also explode if the character changes his action after the trigger?
So the exact action of the AoO has the potential to make the world explode if any action happens other than the AoO attacker and the action declared before the AoO happens?
Gauss is just saying that your method is saying an AoO happened by being provoked by something that never existed, and that makes no sense.
All this even though I have shown the explicit line (yes, in a 3.5 clarification that may be overruled by Paizo, but as of now has not) that, "If someone tries something that provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity happens first."
I tried to point this out before, but I'll quote it
Resolve an attack of opportunity before you resolve the action that triggered it, not after. Sometimes, the attack of opportunity will prevent the triggering action (such as when the attack of opportunity proves lethal to a moving character). If someone tries something that provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity happens first. Attacks of opportunity you make in response to a foe's spellcasting or use of a spell-like ability are an exception (see the Making an Attack of Opportunity section), as is moving into a space another creature occupies.
like, you're missing the context, and twisting things. All that is being said here is that the action is triggered (implying an action was taken), and that you complete your AoO before the action which is triggering the AoO is completed.
Don't forget the "while taking another action" line in there--what action are you going to take and feint your opponent into thinking you're moving to get him to attack you so you can do something else? I wouldn't allow that at all for what it's worth.
I see what you're saying - it needs to be part of the move action. And thank you for pointing that exact wording out. So, yes it is a move action that is starting.
That being said, my point is the same. What ends up happening - regardless of what was declared - is not much to me. I was really just using the concept of a GM deciding what is "free enough" to be a free action, and apply it to the "started is spent" argument. As in - as the rules stand now, the GM gets to decide since there is no wording that suggests either way is right.
Started does not automatically equal spent to me. I rule attacking and provoking with a bow the same way - start to attack, bow get's knocked out of your hands, you still have time to do something that is a standard action. Since there is no rules around exactly how much of your bow attack you (and hence, how much time you spent) went through before it was knocked away - both ways of determining actions spent or not are equally valid.
For the bow attack example - take the definition of Ranged Attack. The bow is knocked out of my hands with an AoO. I could say that I never ended up shooting, therefor I didn't do the definition of a ranged attack and therefor I never did a standard action. And that's using RAW.
How did you ever provoke if you never did anything at all? You're aware an attack with a ranged weapon is a standard action, right?
It is a tell. It is a tell that allowed an opening. It is an opening that the threatening character took advantage of. It is not a crazy change the space-time-continuum paradox. It only plays like one at the table in an effort to simulate a dynamic environment.
---
As to the charge scenario, here is what I meant.
You declare you are charging an enemy, 50' away, while adjacent to another enemy.
The adjacent enemy hits you with an Attack of Opportunity, it was a critical hit and you are now standing (barely) at 1 HP.
Do you have to continue the charge even though you know that the target of the charge has a reach weapon and will get an Attack of Opportunity against you?
---
It is my position that the character that declared the charge has still taken no action and can in fact change their mind and perform a different action. In other words, they do not lose a full round of actions because of an AoO based on a declared action and they are also not forced into charging into death.
I believe this position is bolstered by the 3.5 clarification that states, "If someone tries something that provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity happens first."
And I also believe that the Paizo Trip Lock FAQ bolsters my position because the trip lock does not work because (wait for it) The person that is trying to stand up, hasn't stood up, therefore can't be knocked down and doesn't lose their actions!
So, if a person attempts a move action (move 10') that provokes an AoO and that person is tripped, said person loses (or has used, which ever verbiage you apply) that move action because they "started" the action and they cannot change their action because the action happened BEFORE the AoO...
But:
...If a person attempts a move action (stand from prone) that provokes an AoO and that person is tripped, said person DOES NOT lose (or has not used, which ever verbiage you apply) that move action because ...they started the action and they can continue their action because it happens AFTER the AoO?
The ENTIRE reason that a trip lock doesn't work is because, "the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs" (FAQ). A person standing from prone is not magically or even specifically immune from the trip AoO, it is just a Null Gain as the AoO happens BEFORE they try to stand up.
And I found the relevant Paizo Quote HERE:
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If the AoO INTERRUPTED (as in stopped) the person from standing, they would have lost/used a move action to stand and a trip lock would in fact be possible.
---
Even if I have not persuaded you to agree with my position, I hope this shows that I have thought this through and have based it on a lot of history with both Paizo and Wizards and that I have also tried to apply the logic consistently across my arguments.
BTW, I am moving to the FAQ thread Gauss started.