We have player A, and player B standing right next to one another, and B is taking a move action to move away. A decides to take an attack of opportunity, and replace their melee attack with a trip on B. B is tripped, and may continue his action.
Now this is where I need help.
1. So far did player B not make any progress in their movement? Rules state that Aoo's "interrupt", and that when moving you provoke when you move OUT of a square. Where is player B on the ground?
2. If Player B is in the original square adjacent to player A, did player B spend a move action? Player B did provoke and attempted to move to another square by moving out of a threatened square.
3. If player B didn't spend a move action, and they stand up (provokes/move action), and then moves again, does that movement provoke?
4. If the move action was spent, and the player stands up from prone (move action that provokes), can they make a 5 ft step because they never made movement?
|
1) Player B is prone on the square that provoked the attack of opportunity, which in this case, the original square he began his movement in.
2)He has spend a move action regardless of having been unable to do anything with it, much like a spellcaster losing his spell because he was hit while casting it, the spell is spent even though nothing happened with it.
3) He did spend a move action.
4) Yes, he could take a 5ft step because even though he's spent a move action he has not actually moved and 5ft steps are based on actual movement not move actions.
These are all things that I agree with. I need help using the rules in the book to help someone else understand this. Someone else believes that since they didn't get to move, that they didn't spend their move action. Also, they believe that they should be able to move a square ahead, because the action is them moving into the next square. I tried to explain that standing up provokes, and you are getting hit while you are still sitting, but it didn't seem to connect.
I'm looking for out of the rules how to explain how actions are spent, and this situation of AoO's and trips works the way Crazy has answered my questions.
1) B is in the square where the AoO was provoked (first square in your example).
2) Yes, he spent a move action but did not get anywhere.
Note: opinions on this vary, there is a counter opinion that states that since he has not traveled any distance he has not expended his move action.
3) If B stands up and moves again the movement does not provoke (there are ways to accomplish this via 3 move actions or standing up as a non-move action such as a swift).
You can only provoke for moving once per round per creature threatening you.
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
4) Yes Edit: Maybe based on the quote below.
The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step.
Normally it is 'have you traveled any distance' but that usually predicates you are going to travel some distance using the "Move" move action.
However, as a GM I would allow it since the actual basis of the quoted rule is 'traveling any distance'.Take 5-Foot Step
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
This is a case where the two rules slightly collide.
Where you fall:
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Summary: the provocation is leaving the square.
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
Summary: right before you perform the action that provokes, in this case leaving the square, you suffer the AoO.
If the AoO is trip then you are tripped when you try to leave the square (you haven't actually left yet) and you fall in the square you were trying to leave.
Regarding the expenditure of the action: The person declared the action, they tried to perform the action, the action was prevented via the AoO. This is more common sense than RAW because there is nothing in the RAW that really comes out and spells this out.
Putting this another way, if you allow the person to 'undo' their declared action due to the AoO then what provoked the AoO?
That Crazy Alchemist, actually no. Provoking based on movement is not based on "Move" move actions. It is based on "leaving the threatened square". You can only provoke ONCE per opponent for leaving a threatened square regardless of the number of move actions you take in a round.
This is what the rule I quoted says. It is quite specific that it counts for the entire round.
Here is the quote again:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
Put me down for a dissenting opinion. this would seem to indicate that the AoO happens before the action triggering it. And I'm not sure the caster being hit whilst casting a spell helps your argument. That AoO causes the spellcaster to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell - he doesn't lose it automatically. There are no rules I can find that indicate that an AoO causes you to lose the action interrupted. An AoO can impose a condition that limits actions , but doesn't actually take them away in and of itself.
1) B is in his starting square
2)No he hasn't used his move action
3)standing up will provoke, moving in the same turn will not provoke. It doesn't matter if it's a separate move action as you are immune to AoO from that opponent provoked by movement for the whole round.
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
4)If I'm wrong about the move action, yes he can 5' step as he hasn't actually moved.
dragonhunterq, Im not seeing how you can perform an action, have it interrupted, and still figure you have the action that can no longer be performed.
Lets try this:
You perform a "Move" move action an travel 10 feet when you are tripped.
Did you perform the "Move" move action?
The same logic is at play here, you performed a "Move" move action but traveled 0 feet before you were tripped. That did not negate that you performed the action.
In fact, if you can stand up as an swift (or immediate) action you can continue moving.
Note: Swift actions can be performed in the middle of another action via these two rules:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
Do you know how many times logical answers have proven to be wrong? God knows I've been shown to be wrong when I've given common sense/logical answers more times than I care to admit.
RAW there is nothing to indicate that you lose the action.
I'll be honest and say I think you're right, and that's how I've ruled it in my home games, but I checked and I cannot find anything in the rules to substantiate it.
Losing the action seems like bad language, but you rather spent the action.
I tried to come up with arguments to convince someone at the time this came up, and they said it sounded interesting, but they weren't entirely convinced.
I begin to shoot a bow, and I get tripped. I can't shoot a bow while prone. Can I just stand up and do it again because I never used my standard action?
I start casting a spell that needs components. Sunder in used on my pouch and now I can't complete the spell. Do I keep the spell and my standard or full round action to spend on other things?
This is something that actually happened. Werewolf previously used bite and tripped a magus as an aoo. Wolf's turn is next, and she leaves the magus on the ground and charges at me. The magus had a frost bite on them and hits. The condition prevents charging. We roar in victory, and the gm just chooses another action to walk to me and attack me without the ac penalty or anything.
You declared the action, suffered consequences for the action, so didn't you spend the action for better or worse? Why wouldn't you have spent it? Can anyone think of a way to create infinite actions by negating them and starting them over again?
|
|
That Crazy Alchemist, actually no. Provoking based on movement is not based on "Move" move actions. It is based on "leaving the threatened square". You can only provoke ONCE per opponent for leaving a threatened square regardless of the number of move actions you take in a round.
This is what the rule I quoted says. It is quite specific that it counts for the entire round.
Here is the quote again:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
Hmm interesting. I think you might be right. I'll have to look into that.
Citing rules to help me persuade is appreciated. I'm going to use the prone trip faq to help.
You do not "lose" the move action because you were tripped. The Attack of Opportunity happens before you ever "use" the move action to move. It is simply how it works, which is written out clearly in the AoO section.
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
If you were going to make an attack with a bow and were tripped, you could switch out and attack with a sword from prone without losing the attack action. (In most cases, you can't use a bow while prone.)
If you look at the trip lock FAQ and reverse its logic you will see.
The trip lock FAQ DOES NOT say that a prone target is an ineligible target for tripping when they try to stand up. It explains that the target is already prone. Therefore, if you make a prone target prone, nothing changes. It goes on to say that the target can then stand up.
Again, it DOES NOT say that you cannot use the trip maneuver on a prone target. I believe a designer referred to it as a NULL GAIN.
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
The fact that prone individual can stand up after "re-tripped" means that he did not lose his move action.
Nothing anywhere states that an action is lost during an attack of opportunity or within trip. If the character had a crawl speed, I see no reason that they could not continue their movement.
Also, it does not matter how many actions you take, you can only provoke one AoO from a single attacker by leaving squares.
*Note, the SPECIFIC rule related to spellcasting and being interrupted by AoOs is different than the general rules concering AoOs.
Komoda, the problem with that concept is that if you never used the move action to move then you never provoked then the universe explodes in a temporal causality loop. (that was humor btw :) )
If you are moving and provoke you have used your move action even if the distance traveled is a whopping 0 feet due to someone stopping you from going anywhere.
However, this keeps coming up over and over and there are clearly two sides to this. Perhaps a FAQ thread is in order.
If you are PLANNING on moving, and it provokes, someone gets the jump on you.
It is exactly the same as saying, "I attack" to start a fight but then losing initiative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Komoda, I agree that you can do whatever combat maneuver you want, and whatever out of the 3 you can replace on an AoO, but the results given the circumstances will just fail. I can bullrush things many times bigger than me, but I will just fail.
Anyways, I don't understand where you're coming from with your arguments. To stand up, you spend a move action, then to go through the process of if it provokes or not. The ACTION provokes, and you need to spend the action to provoke in the first place. Nothing in the rules talks about you planning to do anything, but rather that the action you preform provokes. So, you use the action, it provokes, the AoO interrupts, and if you can still preform the action then you do so.
Moving provokes when you move OUT of a square. So, you spend a move action to begin to start moving distance, and as you move out, an AoO triggers in our hypothetical. You interrupt and resolve what happens before moving on. In the situation where you are tripped, you no longer have the opportunity to continue with your action since you are prone. You didn't lose anything, but rather you spent it.
Starting initiative isn't based on you preforming action economy.
Again, things don't happen BEFORE, but rather they INTERRUPT. The action IS being preformed, and BEFORE it finishes, you are subjected to possible AoO because it provoked.
Spend action, begin to preform action, resolve steps of the action such as if it provokes with all applicable things that are involved with that, resolve the rest of the action. That seems to be the process, but feel free to refine that for me.
No, it clearly states that the Attack of Opportunity happens BEFORE the triggering action.
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.
One definition of interrupt is to go before. You interrupt the order, you don't stop the action. If you interrupt someone that is speaking, you don't necessarily stop them from speaking, you just don't wait your turn.
It is all a problem with round based combat. It has to be one way or the other. That is how the chains start. If both sides have 4 AoOs per round, 8 actions could have "started" before any actually took place. If one of the combatants kills the other on the first ACTUAL AoO that takes place, the other 3 didn't happen and that character still has all those AoOs to use in the round.
Gauss, you are correct. I feel, and I know I have read this a few times in official posts from 3.5 and/or Pathfinder, that it much better explained that the opening that is a provoked AoO is just an opening, and extra shot for the one making the AoO. It should not be seen as a way to completely negate a combatants turn. Again, the spell-casting rules are a specific case.
Spellcasting specifically calls out that it is interrupted. It is not called out for any other AoO (aside from feats and special abilities).
Of course, your mileage may vary in all of this. But if you allow all types of actions to be interrupted AND LOST by an AoO, I believe you are giving the AoO more power than listed by RAW and RAI.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, it clearly states that the Attack of Opportunity happens BEFORE the triggering action.
....
He does not even have to continue with the original action that was planned.
Near as I can tell, this isn't actually true. A quick look through the Combat chapter's AoO rules didn't find anything, and the trip-lock FAQ says the AoO takes place before the triggering action IS RESOLVED.
Additionally, the rules for concentration state that damage from an AoO provoked by spellcasting forces a concentration check (and failure costs you the spell). This becomes nonsensical if the action hasn't even started yet, and ESPECIALLY if you're not even committed to it. The concentration rules even refer to such an event as taking damage WHILE casting the spell.
Maybe I've missed something (and by all means, point it out if I did), but from what I've read, the whole "the triggering action hasn't even started and you can do something else instead" idea is one you invented yourself, and does not come from the rules.
Ok, I found the original 3.5 rules clarification at Wizards.com. I know that things have changed with Pathfinder, but I do not believe that the base rules of Attack of Opportunities have.
Common Misconception #3: Attacks of opportunity happen after the actions that trigger them.
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.
Those rules can be found HERE
Let me know what you think.
|
|
I've got to agree with Jiggy, can you point out the verbage that says it happens before the triggering action actually happens?
Ok, I found the original 3.5 rules clarification at Wizards.com. I know that things have changed with Pathfinder, but I do not believe that the base rules of Attack of Opportunities have.
Common Misconception #3: Attacks of opportunity happen after the actions that trigger them.
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.
Those rules can be found HERE
Let me know what you think.
..can you point out the pathfinder rules?
Oh, and here is some more from Part II. Go to the link above, at the bottom is a section that shows a few "Rules of the Game" articles. Click the "more" link in the bottom right of that section. There are a lot of awesome rules clarifications is there. Again, I know they are not all Paizo approved, but it shows you where all this stuff started from.
Attack of Opportunity Chains: If both you and your foe have multiple attacks of opportunity, the two of you could set up a whole chain of attacks of opportunity. For example, you try to disarm, provoking an attack of opportunity. Your foe responds by attempting to disarm you, and you respond with another disarm attempt.
When this situation occurs, simply allow both foes to keep going with attacks of opportunity until one of them either runs out of attacks of opportunity or chooses not to make any more. Keep track of all the attacks of opportunity each combatant provokes and makes. Resolve the final attack of opportunity in the chain first, and then work forward along the chain until you've resolved all of them or until one opponent's attack of opportunity foils the other's action.
Let's return to our previous example: Let's say you have three attacks of opportunity available and your foe has two.
You make a disarm attempt when your opponent moves past you (attack of opportunity #1). This provokes an attack of opportunity from your foe.
Your foe decides to disarm you in turn (attack of opportunity #2). This provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
You decide to disarm again (attack of opportunity #3).
Your foe also decides to disarm again (attack of opportunity #4 and your foe's second and last attack of opportunity).
You decide to disarm yet again (attack of opportunity #5 and your third and last attack of opportunity).
Your foe would like to disarm you again, but he's out of attacks of opportunity, so that's the end of the chain.
Resolve attack of opportunity #5 first; if you succeed, your foe no longer threatens you and can't continue, bringing the whole process to an end. If you fail to disarm your foe, move on to attack of opportunity #4; now your foe has a chance to end the process by disarming you. Continue until one of you is disarmed or until all the attacks of opportunity are resolved.
Oh, Right Claude. I didn't make a qualifying statement such as:
I know that things have changed with Pathfinder, but I do not believe that the base rules of Attack of Opportunities have.
Oh wait, I did.
Show me where it says a dead character cannot make an attack.
Yes, you resolve it in order, resolution does not mean 'you did not use your action'. The 3.5 Rules of the Game that you quoted even state that you have to resolve the action that provoked it after the AoO is completed.
I declare action, I begin action, I resolve action
becomes
I declare action, I begin action, I provoke, Opponent declares AoO, Opponent resolves AoO, I resolve action (if possible).
The action has begun, you cannot take it back. Resolving is not an excuse to allow you to take your action back.
|
Komoda, I think you are reading into things a bit.
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
See the bolded section. You use your Move action when you try to leave the square, but it does nothing because being prone prevents the move from resolving further.
There is no difference because it is the beginning of your movement as opposed to the middle of it.|
|
Oh, Right Claude. I didn't make a qualifying statement such as:
I know that things have changed with Pathfinder, but I do not believe that the base rules of Attack of Opportunities have.Oh wait, I did.
Show me where it says a dead character cannot make an attack.
I know you did, I don't care about that other game. The rule clarifications for that don't have any baring on pathfinder.
You could have just as easily have said "all interrupts in mtg got errata'd to instances" or "candy land no longer uses cards to determine movement but a spinner". What you pointed out pertained closely to the matter at hand but is just as relevant (i.e. not at all) as my two gratuitous examples.
Komoda, the problem with that concept is that if you never used the move action to move then you never provoked then the universe explodes in a temporal causality loop. (that was humor btw :) )
This sounds very reasonable and makes sense - but nothing is really forcing you to rewind the resolution like that when you're playing. There's no reason to go back and resolve the paradox. And since nothing in RAW gives any guidance on exactly what or when a player goes past the point of no backsies on an action - I don't see a reason to try to deduce what's going on in this way.
I just rule what's reasonable to the battlefield - you started a move, before you actually did any of the move you found yourself in a position that doesn't allow that action, now you do something else.
If you happen to make it 10ft on a move action, then get tripped, yes I call that a move action. Just like deciding to use your 30ft speed to only actually move 10ft. is still a move action - but if you decide to move 0ft, it is not a move action. (Even if you looked at me and said "I'm taking my move action to move 0 ft.", I still wouldn't count it as a move action)
You say "before you actually did any of the move", but the trigger for the AoO is "leaving the square". Thus, you were actually moving as you were leaving and not stationary. Clearly an action occurred. What action was it if not the Move action that was in the process of being executed?
If you get tripped, you end up in your starting square, right? So if the trigger is "leaving the square", how did you manage to "leave the square" if you didn't leave the square?
EDIT: My point, is I don't need an answer to the above question - there's no reason to answer it. You do not need to solve or figure out what happens if there's no RAW around it. You just decide as a GM.
I consider the fact that you haven't made it anywhere on the grid not actually moving. I don't have to go back and justify to the AoO that it could have existed.
You did not leave your square, you were leaving your square. Clearly 'something' was happening since you were leaving it. How far you got is just a measurement, the action you were taking is clear, a "Move" move action.
If you get tripped, you end up in your starting square, right? So if the trigger is "leaving the square", how did you manage to "leave the square" if you didn't leave the square?
The trigger is "leaving the square" not "having left the square".
If I'm leaving a building and someone reacts by jumping into the doorway I was leaving the building by I haven't left yet.
Yes - and I consider "not having left the square" not enough action to use up a move action.
Yes - and I consider "not having left the square" not enough action to use up a move action.Which is a determination of your own design, and not something implied (let alone stated) by the rules.
One person says you only need to have moved enough to provoke for it to be considered a spent action. Another person says you need to have moved enough to make it one square.
Those are both determinations. What are you trying to say?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes - and I consider "not having left the square" not enough action to use up a move action.Which is a determination of your own design, and not something implied (let alone stated) by the rules.One person says you only need to have moved enough to provoke for it to be considered a spent action. Another person says you need to have moved enough to make it one square.
Those are both determinations. What are you trying to say?
I'm only saying that "if you haven't traveled at least one square, you haven't spent/committed to an action yet" is what thundercade says, not what the rules say.
This is the rules forum.
The rules say that an AoO is "resolved" before the triggering event is "resolved". Taken at face value, this means that "resolving" is the only part of the triggering action that is left undone until after the AoO. Adding the idea that it not only hasn't resolved yet, but ALSO hasn't even STARTED yet, is adding one's own inventions to the rules.
Additions to make your game run smoother have their own forum, and figuring out what the rules themselves actually say has this forum.
When "this company" copies "that company's" game from start to finish and leaves the EXACT wording of the rule in question, it would logically carry some weight, even if it is not gospel.
It should also show that I am not "making things up."
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
We have no "official" word about how it works from "this company," that I am aware of. We have official word from "that company" (the one whose rule was copied VERBATIM). It would seem to me that the most official clarification as of now is the one that I linked to before. If you don't want to follow it, fine. But it at least legitimizes my position, even if "this company" eventually rules otherwise.
I would never present 3.5 rules OVER Pathfinder rules. My point, all along, is that in this case, they are the same rules.
Just look at how they have now fully accepted the 3.5 Diagonal reach exception after all these years.
Yes - and I consider "not having left the square" not enough action to use up a move action.Which is a determination of your own design, and not something implied (let alone stated) by the rules.One person says you only need to have moved enough to provoke for it to be considered a spent action. Another person says you need to have moved enough to make it one square.
Those are both determinations. What are you trying to say?
I'm only saying that "if you haven't traveled at least one square, you haven't spent/committed to an action yet" is what thundercade says, not what the rules say.
This is the rules forum.
The rules say that an AoO is "resolved" before the triggering event is "resolved". Taken at face value, this means that "resolving" is the only part of the triggering action that is left undone until after the AoO. Adding the idea that it not only hasn't resolved yet, but ALSO hasn't even STARTED yet, is adding one's own inventions to the rules.
Additions to make your game run smoother have their own forum, and figuring out what the rules themselves actually say has this forum.
I'm not saying it didn't start. I'm saying that I don't interpret that as something that constitutes a move action now being spent.
I'm pointing out here are no rules that state if an action started is interrupted, and now cannot resolve the way intended, that it is now over. There is wording that says you complete your turn, and for readied actions interrupting there is wording around completing actions if possible. It doesn't say that if it's not possible then it is lost. (Unless I'm not finding something that does rule on this.)
The move action being spent or committed is just as much of a rules invention as anything I've said.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Komoda - Sometimes the verbatim rules mean the same thing, but sometimes they mean different things, and you really don't have any way to tell which is which.
Granted you didn't just make it up; I should have guessed that maybe there was a 3.5 FAQ or something. Sorry about that.
Even so, sometimes Pathfinder carries the same base text but establishes a different intent (such as with the change to how similar spells and SLAs are, despite not changing the actual rules text). The Pathfinder Design Team is a different set of people than those who wrote 3.5, they have different intents, different design philosophies, and even their own viewpoints have had time to evolve since Pathfinder was published.
The old "3.5 until contradicted" mantra may have been viable when Pathfinder was first published, that window of viability has long since closed. I could even dig up quotes of designers saying "This isn't 3.5, so such-and-such doesn't apply" if you like.
The game has moved on. You don't have to go with it, but you can't pull it back.
And now you are making sense. Us disagreeing on the outcome is fine, healthy even. The recent change to the Diagonal reach rules would not have happened without debate. But so often on this forum many opinions, even if backed by logic, are shot down with vitriol of "stop making it up" & "that is not what it reads".
Yes, it is a rules forum that is based on trying to follow RAW. But RAW is subjective. As I have stated before, the most powerful RAW in the United States is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment hasn't changed in over 200 years. But there is a huge divide, both scholarly and publicly, as to its meaning. *Not stating a position, just pointing out a hugely known fact.
And Paizo's RAW does not always follow the same logic. And Paizo changes their mind as to what RAW means. And Paizo changes the RAW. And some of us have been playing the same base D20 system for what, 15 years now?
In all seriousness without malice, if you are not using "3.5 until contradicted" what are you using to support your claim that my position is incorrect?
Sometimes, the GM deciding is the rule. Example:
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.
From the free action rule, I can say starting to move enough to provoke but not actually get anywhere is free. Player tells me what he wants to do, now finds himself a free amount of time into that move when he can no longer do what he told me he wants to do. I say he's taken a free action so far. (Note: "Moving" is what provokes, not "Taking a Move Action". I am within the rules to say that the starting movement that provoked was a free action).
|
|
Sometimes, the GM deciding is the rule. Example:
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.From the free action rule, I can say starting to move enough to provoke but not actually get anywhere is free. Player tells me what he wants to do, now finds himself a free amount of time into that move when he can no longer do what he told me he wants to do. I say he's taken a free action so far. (Note: "Moving" is what provokes, not "Taking a Move Action". I am within the rules to say that the starting movement that provoked was a free action).
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.
Komoda, I don't think anyone is using 3.5 in any aspect for the rules at all. I used the thing you linked a lot for when I played 3.5 because it helped me explain how movement only provokes once to players, and also that you can trip flying creatures. Pathfinder you can't trip flying creatures, and that makes me sad, but what's important to point out is that those things don't apply here.
All your link for the 3.5 rules says is that the AoO happens before you resolve the action that triggered it. I don't see the argument that you didn't spend the action to create the situation ever happening, or that you absolutely do it 100% before any part of it happened, because it only says before resolving the triggering action, and not before the action happens at all.
Fighter, My quote above explicitly calls out how a normal AoO is not like an AoO used on a spell casting foe.
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.
It is my opinion, but not explicitly stated, that because it happens first, you are still free to act in whatever manner you wish. As Thundercade pointed out, if you are tripped 10' into your movement, your movement is done (unless you have a crawl speed). But I see no evidence that your proposed action (what triggered the AoO) MUST be completed or you lose the action economy of those proposed actions.
I agree with you about tripping flying creatures, btw. But as Paizo has ACTUALLY ruled otherwise, that is how I play.
The matter is that you CAN'T continue your movement. If you had a crawl speed, then you would I suppose continue to move because you CAN continue. You spend the action, then you continue from there until completion. The AoO is done before the completion when you provoke from it, which is AFTER you begin the action.
The AoO happening before the action is resolved doesn't mean that the action never existed. Again, if you had the crawl speed, and you were tripped, I suppose you would be forced to continue to move into that square.
And what about my charge scenario earlier? Once you take damage would you be forced to continue the charge into what could be your death?
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?
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."
So that we can try to get a FAQ on this perhaps we should move this to the FAQ thread.