Anguish, you can't break the potion until after it is out. So, you could not break it due to the retrieve action. You could break it during the standard action, which would just mean you break it before he drinks it.
No one, including me, would dispute the bottle is broken.
Here is the original FAQ from Wizards about Trip Locks:
When a character gets up from prone, when does the attack of opportunity take place? When he is still prone?
When he is standing? Can the attacker choose when to attack? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 bonus to hit. In the other, he can make another trip attack. All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s getting up, your target is effectively
prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however. D&D FAQ v.3.5 72 Update Version: 6/30/08
This matches the Paizo FAQ as well - but not word for word like the original rule.
|
Good thread. This comes up often in games I run and I've at least got a consistent interpretation I apply when it does.
To further the discussion, I see "readied action to cast grease/stumble gap/etc when a target moves" as a tactic.
The target may have declared they were making a 5ft step into that square as a free action to discover it is now greasy or difficult terrain before their foot lands. I run the readied action essentially like an interrupt, and the original declared action has to happen, but how the "action budget" is spent can be revised.
Now if the square is difficult, did it take my move action without me wanting it to? (i.e. I originally thought it was a free action to step into that square and had planned to use my move action to pull out a potion). Here I run it takes the move action now to complete that step as it was something unexpected by you.
However, I'd allow the person who's now been forced to convert their free 5ft step action into a move action to continue to use their move action to cross more squares as desired.
Any time the situation for a move action changes in the middle of the move action (usually due to a ready), I always allow the "mover" to continue their move action at whatever speed they have with whatever new conditions apply. If someone moves half their movement, and is then hit by a readied slow, I still give them half-of-half their movement left to move. They can also change their path/route when the readied action resolves.
The Step Up feat provides another kind of "interrupt" like a readied actions and AoOs provide. Since you can take 5ft steps with a readied action, you could even beat someone to a square before they finish their 5ft step into it.
Monster: "I 5ft step into J,12"
Bob: "My ready goes off since the monster didn't surrender, I 5ft into J,12 and swing".
Monster (seeing J,12 is now occupied): No longer with the option to 5ft step into J,12 - they still can move though because their 5ft step was unsuccessful (and thus aren't denied their move action to actually move).
In general, if any interrupt happens in the middle of movement (both a 5ft step or a move action spanning one or more squares), I allow the mover to convert their action between different movement actions (this is key) if desired (in some cases its not a decision, the conversion is forced on them) and then deal with the effects of that converison.
I acknowledge this as a rules interpretation, but it comes up so often I need a consistent answer here when it comes up. :)
Some clear FAQ clarifications on move actions and conversion between 5ft steps and moves, and what happens if you start a move action to have the environment/conditons on you change would be dandy. FAQ'd.
Think about it, (assume 30' speed) you try to step away from me, but I am so fast (not my turn), I punch you in the face. Now you're so pathetically slow in combat (on your turn) that you have to continue stepping away from me and cannot punch back. Not only that, but if you were thinking about running 120' away, it would take you 3 rounds before you could even try to punch me back. And if I move 5', you would have to wait 4 rounds.
It is clear from this example here that you are either:
1) Not understanding what is being said, or you are not actually reading the view points. (Your requoting of the Paizo trip FAQ as somehow supporting your position suggests this as well - I recommend you go back to my first post in this thread that explains how the no-trip lock sequence works).
2) Deliberately ignoring what is being said so that you can make claims that the opposing view point leads to ridiculous logical conclusions (which is disingenuous if this is the case).
bbangerter, it is a claim of others, if not you, that once you declare an action, you must follow through with that action. Byakko stated, "As soon as you declare you are using your move action to move, you are spending it." Others have made the same basic claim that you are not able to make changes to that action based on battlefield conditions. It is hard and fast with Charge, if it is not with the movement in the example that you quoted.
Edit: Isn't it true, based on Byakko's statement, that if I declare, "I am going to run 120' to X" and that someone threatening me gets an AoO and if they hit me, I still have to run the 120' since I declared it as my action? And if not, what allows me to make the change to my declared full round action?
/End edit.
Wait, I just went back to the beginning where you said, "There is no rule that says you have to move the planned movement path. In the case of charge there is no rule that says you can't end your movement in the charge early, swing (at the empty air) and be out of range of the reach weapon." Myself, and at least one other, have shown this to be incorrect.
Is that what you are basing my not understanding the opposing viewpoints?
I am not ignoring anything. I try very hard to counter points or give them validity, even if I do not agree with the conclusion, and not ignore them. I may have missed something, or you may have misunderstood what I was countering, which is possible because I am writing this at work in between loading a machine and therefore it is choppy and not formatted precisely.
To clarify, I think Malachi has the best way to clearly show the difference in opinions.
When compared to pressing a button in a software program.
My opinion is that:
Hovering over the button declares the action.
Everyone sees it and can react (Take Attack of Opportunity)
I can now decide not to press the button, or choose a different button.
Opposing view:
There is no hovering over the button.
The button is pressed.
Everyone sees it and can react (Take Attack of Opportunity)
The button may be broken from the AoO (can't move if you are now prone).
You must press the button if it is not broken.
---
Isn't that about right?
Malachi's quote that inspired the above:
"If pressing a button triggers a response which occurs before anything else, then that button was still pressed. You can't pretend you didn't press it."
|
|
My viewpoint is that, akin to touching a piece in chess, once you touch the button you are committed to pressing it. As long as you keep your finger hovering over the button, you are free to change your mind; once your finger makes contact with the button, though, you lose that option. It's the act of touching the button that triggers the AoO, by which time it's too late to back out and choose another button.
Edit: Or, if you want to stick with the software analogy:
Pressing (clicking on) a button declares your intention, and triggers the AoO. The actual action tied to the button, though, only happens on the "up-click" transition in the button state.
|
Opposing view:
There is no hovering over the button.
The button is pressed.
Everyone sees it and can react (Take Attack of Opportunity)
The button may be broken from the AoO (can't move if you are now prone).
You must press the button if it is not broken.
Your summary leaves out a few considerations, but is essential correct. It is more accurate to say:
"The effect of the button occurs if it has not been broken," and"User can interrupt variable effects, but not fixed effects"
The decision to use an action is final (pressing the button), but the effects may be variable (choosing to end a move action after 5 feet does not make it a 5-foot step. You still used that move action).
Many GMs will allow you to interrupt an action to move up to your speed (or run) because the action does not have defined endpoints. At the beginning of your action, you could have chosen to stop in the middle, so you are allowed to decide in the middle of your action to stop. You don't have that same choice during a charge, though.
(An aside about charging, if you don't want to complete your run/charge it is a free action to drop prone at any point along your path, interrupting your ability to move. You would still have spent your full-round action no matter how far you actually went. )
bbangerter, it is a claim of others, if not you, that once you declare an action, you must follow through with that action. Byakko stated, "As soon as you declare you are using your move action to move, you are spending it." Others have made the same basic claim that you are not able to make changes to that action based on battlefield conditions. It is hard and fast with Charge, if it is not with the movement in the example that you quoted.
Starting your move, and mapping out your entire move are entirely different things. I most certainly have not stated that you must map out your entire move and take that entire movement, quite the opposite. I don't believe anyone else has either, though I may have missed it.
The charge issue is being pedantic. I acknowledge (as I already did up thread as well) that, yes, by RAW, you must complete the charge (if you are still capable of charging). I also noted that as a GM I'd never enforce a particular action continue to completion if the player now found it unfavorable to do so, but that I would not let them replace it with a completely different action.
(Would you? What if the scenario were charge, but halfway through the charge, rather than the beginning, they get hit with an AoO? Would you make them complete the charge into their death?).
Edit: Isn't it true, based on Byakko's statement, that if I declare, "I am going to run 120' to X" and that someone threatening me gets an AoO and if they hit me, I still have to run the 120' since I declared it as my action? And if not, what allows me to make the change to my declared full round action?/End edit.
If he made that claim he may defend it if he wishes, I certainly won't, as noted above I'd argue against that ruling.
Wait, I just went back to the beginning where you said, "There is no rule that says you have to move the planned movement path. In the case of charge there is no rule that says you can't end your movement in the charge early, swing (at the empty air) and be out of range of the reach weapon." Myself, and at least one other, have shown this to be incorrect.
The second half, reposted here:
I am prone.I declare I'm going to stand up (but so far am still prone).
This triggers an AoO.
The AoO decides to trip, and applies the prone condition to me (which I already have).
Now I complete my action, which is a legal action for me to take, that is stand up removing the prone condition.
So some clarifications:
Declaring you are going to stand does not provoke the AoO, beginning to stand does (though that is a semantical distinction). Beginning to stand does not remove your current prone condition (but triggers the AoO). Ending (or resolving) your stand does. The AoO goes off before you resolve your action (or in shorthand: it goes off before your action).
How could you possible state that it is a free action to drop prone, but not a free action to stand still?
bbangerter, like I said before, I disagree with your position. You showed how you believe it works, and I showed how I believe it works. I didn't ignore it, just disagreed with it.
You wrote, "I also noted that as a GM I'd never enforce a particular action continue to completion if the player now found it unfavorable to do so, but that I would not let them replace it with a completely different action."
This is also not RAW. You just drew a different line than me. I like to allow the player to finish all of his actions that have not started. Any action that is started, is converted into the smallest legal action economy possible.
For instance (assumes 30' movement): Charging someone 40' away.
The player declares a charge and moves 20' when,
the GM says, "now that you are closer, a readied action spell goes off and you see an obscured pit 10' in front of you."
The player stops his charge.
My line:
I would allow the player to convert the charge (full round action) into a move action and finish out his turn.
Your line: (Please correct if I am mistaken)
You would allow the player to stop the charge, but they have lost their full round action.
---
Using the above logic with an AoO, it is all about where we draw the line. I state that the AoO happens before the trigger (which I believe is backed by my 3.5 FAQs and not countered by any Paizo source), which means the provoker can do something else.
You claim (again, I may be mistaken) is that it happens after the trigger, but before the triggering action, and that they cannot do something else.
While our outcomes can be vastly different, our logic is not. It is only where we draw the line.
|
|
Because the hidden cost of dropping prone is the move action to stand up. Which makes sense for throwing yourself to the ground during an all-out charge. There is no action penalty for stopping in place. I feel that there should be a penalty for foolishly charging through AoOs instead of moving cautiously up to attack.
One point of confusion I've had in this thread is why anyone would take the actions that provoke in the first place.
Not to be snarky, but you believe because one free action has a penalty and the other does not, that the free action with no penalty is not allowed, but the free action with a penalty is allowed?
You realize there is no rules logic to that, correct?
|
|
There is no listed action for stopping to stand still. Dropping prone is actually a rule.
Edit:
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.
...
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.
NikolaiJuno, no. I am claiming the exact opposite of that.
You declare you are attacking with a bow. It is the trigger that Provokes the AoO. The AoO happens. You fire the bow.
|
Let me expand on my 'button' analogy:-
There is a Big Red Button which, if pressed, launches the nukes.
But you cannot press The Button until you turn the key to the 'launch' position.
Turing the key to the 'launch' position allows you to press the button. No key turn, no button press.
Turning the key to the 'launch' position = taking the 'move my speed' move action.
Pressing the button = actually attempting to leave my starting square.
I cannot attempt to move my mini until I am actually taking my 'move my speed' action. Just like I cannot press the button unless the key has been turned to the 'launch' position.
I cannot move until I am taking the action. But it is not the act of taking that action that provokes, but the act of trying to leave that threatened square that provokes an AoO.
Moving out of your square, or attempting to, cannot even be done until you take the 'move my speed' action, so if you are attempting to leave that square then you must already be in the midst of taking that action. The button is being pressed, so we know that the key must already have been turned.
Right, I get your analogy. I just disagree with the exact timing of it. I thought comparing my version to your version with the same analogy was a real clear way to show the difference. I never thought you agreed with my position.
So, where does the idea of "declaring" come from, from a rules standpoint? (I'm really asking)
There seems to be a lot of argument/rule derivations based on a player declaring his action to do something. I see definition around what actions and how many of each a player can take. But, I don't see anything stating that a declaration is needed at all.(If there is, then apologies in advance - but I think what I state below is still valid)
When I've played with less rules-intense players (hang with me here, I know this is a rules discussion), most of them describe their turn or what they want to do by doing just that - describing it, not splitting it out for me on their own. They're aware of how the action types work, so they know the limits, but they would still say something to the effect of "Ok, I go over here and attack this goblin." As long as their actions allow all of that to happen, then it all moves along.
So - are there rules that actually require the declaration? I get that this seems like a logical way to play, but is it required?
I ask because of the following:
There's no declaration of an action just because of an intention. The action is the action if you do it. Not if you intend to do it or don't do enough to actually do it. I don't feel like I'm making this up. I think it's supported by the rules.
In the following wording from PRD:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
it uses the word "perform" several times, and at others it uses the word "take".
So - that's what triggers the action use to me - actually performing it. (You could also argue that attempting to perform it for roughly the same amount of time also uses it, I guess.)
In the tripping AoO example - if you move, but do not move enough for it to be considered a move action, then get tripped prior to crossing that threshold, now prone. At this point, the player hasn't moved enough to be a move action - so they didn't perform a move action. Their body moved enough to make it obvious they were going to, and then they didn't (in this case, due to physically being unable to do so). The motion needed to provoke that attack doesn't have to be enough to be considered performing a move action.
All combatants are moving during combat in the sense of small motions (bobbing, weaving, etc.) within their creature size squares. Those small movements (again, in the sense of any motion at all) aren't accounted for in actions. It's not unreasonable to think that the amount of motion/movement needed to make it obvious that you're leaving a square with your guard down is within the "noise" of all of the other motion all characters are always making.
Someone could ready an action and say "Ok, I stare at the paralyzed goblin. As soon as he becomes unparalyzed, I'm attacking." (Why you would do this, I have no idea, but let's say it's happening)
In that case - the goblin will become unparalyzed and no doubt the player watching would immediately know because the goblin is now in normal body motion - an in-game effect for that watching player. The goblin doesn't get charged with a move action just because he's done being paralyzed and isn't entirely motionless and there was some in-game effect for someone else. It's reasonable to say that whatever movement that triggered an AoO is just not enough actual moving to perform a move action.
Here's another example for shooting a bow:
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
That amount of motion/time seems analogous to moving but not moving enough to get out of a square. Just because it happens in preparation for the action, and can be enough to provoke an AoO, doesn't mean it's an action.
So, if what actually ends up happening still falls within the allowed actions - then it's ok.
I know a question to be put to this is "then everyone can just change their mind once the AoO provokes". I think that's an entirely separate question - issues dealing with that shouldn't dictate what's counted as an action. To me, it sounds like this entire argument is really for when you're prevented from doing any of what you originally intended. Are there any rules stating you can't do this anyway?
|
|
Actually performing acts that require 'Actions In Combat' means that you are using that action. Since you're already doing it, you can't take a different Action In Combat as if you never took the one you started. You can abort your action, but not swap it.
Since you must be moving out of your square to provoke, then if that AoO takes place then you must be moving out of your square! Whether you make it out of the square or not, meaning how many full squares you actually moved, is neither here nor there. Moving zero squares is a valid use of the 'move your speed' action.
Since you can only move your PC if you take an Action In Combat which allows such movement, then if you move your PC then you must be taking such an Action! You also must take a definate Action; you can't start moving your mini about and decide what kind of Action it was later! That's called 'cheating'.
So, where 'declaring' your action comes in is simply establishing which Action In Combat it is that you are taking, to avoid confusion (and accusations of cheating).
Komoda says that he'd let someone take the 'charge' action, move 20-feet as part of that 'charge' action, then swap it for a different action (one that would have allowed that 20-foot movement), as if he never took that 'charge' action.
He can do what he likes as DM, but this is not within the rules. No-one can force you to complete the movement you planned on doing during that charge, and they can't force you to attack at the end, but you don't get to buy a sandwich, eat some of it, then give the sandwich back to the seller and take another. If you do, you need to pay for the second sandwich. If you take the 'move your speed' action and get tripped in the first square, tough. You can use a second move action to do something, but your original move action has already been spent. You don't get your money, or Action, back just because your action didn't go as you planned.
There is no basis for separating 'declaring' and 'taking an action' in the rules.
When we use it to discuss things it is being used as a language construct of breaking down how people express information.
When I say "I am moving" that is both the declaration (language construct) and taking an action (rules construct).
Then the resolution of that rules construct occurs (barring interruptions such as AoOs and Readied actions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you can see the future, the AoO or the Ready Action has to happen after the triggering action has already started to happen. In my understanding, a AoO happens somewhere during the triggering action, after is has started and before it's concluded.
So, you can't change your action after the AoO, because you had alrady started it and some of it has happen already. What should normaly happen is for you to lose your action, like if you try to Trip with a weapon and the resulting AoO Sunders your weapon, you lose your "whole Trip" attempt, but in the case of movement, it can be divided in squares, so maybe you could use the rest of it, if you can (this is something that has not yet been adressed by the rules, I belive).
Sometimes, when you "declare" you are gona take a move and a AoO makes you prone, effectively moving 0 squares, it may seem like you didn't move at all, but in fact you did. You had to start your movement for the AoO to happen but got thrown prone in the middle of it, so now you are somewhere in between squares. Legally, you can't stay there, and one point of the trip was to prevent you from reaching the other square, so the game throws you back to where you started, but in fact you wasted your action already.
Anyhow, I too would like to know:
If you are tripped while moving, can you use the rest of your movement to crawl/burrow while prone?
If you are tripped making a full-attack, can you continue the rest of your attacks while prone?
If you are tripped making a full-attack, can you continue the rest of your attacks while prone?
If the form of attack you are taking can be made while prone then yes. E.g, making melee attacks you take a -4 penalty to attack while prone, but you can still make your attacks.
Attacking with a bow: you cannot attack with a bow while prone, you'd lose whatever remained of your full attack. Note that in this case if you'd only made one attack so far, you could opt to revert your full attack to a standard action (which is lost), then still have a move action to do something with.
|
|
In the bow example, if you were tripped while full-attacking, you can change your full attack into a standard attack and a move action, but only because this is a specific, written rule for changing full attacks into standard attacks after the first attack but before the second.
The prone shooter could still continue his full attack, but not with the bow (unless he has some special ability to shoot a bow while prone). If he had Quick Draw then he could draw another weapon and attack at -4.
Actually performing acts that require 'Actions In Combat' means that you are using that action. Since you're already doing it, you can't take a different Action In Combat as if you never took the one you started. You can abort your action, but not swap it.
Since you must be moving out of your square to provoke, then if that AoO takes place then you must be moving out of your square! Whether you make it out of the square or not, meaning how many full squares you actually moved, is neither here nor there. Moving zero squares is a valid use of the 'move your speed' action.
Since you can only move your PC if you take an Action In Combat which allows such movement, then if you move your PC then you must be taking such an Action! You also must take a definate Action; you can't start moving your mini about and decide what kind of Action it was later! That's called 'cheating'.
So, where 'declaring' your action comes in is simply establishing which Action In Combat it is that you are taking, to avoid confusion (and accusations of cheating).
So, my point is that everything you're saying is presupposing that it needs to be defined ahead of time. It doesn't. That's why I asked about the "declaring" thing. I know it's communication. But it's the concept of committing that I don't see rules around.
No, as you said, a player cannot start moving and decide what kind of action it was later. The player can start moving and the GM decides what kind of action it was. That isn't cheating. It's deciding. It just happens after when you choose to do the deciding. And the player and GM can discuss any kind of possible scenarios before hand, if they wish, so they are both clear on what things will be called in the end.
Nothing forces you to play step by step, committing future actions to a move action. Nothing forces players to call out what type of action they want to use to do something. That's just the way you feel you need to play the game. It is not required. If they performed the action, then they performed it. If they didn't perform it, then they didn't. If they don't move enough to actually move, then I say that's not performing the action.
Moving enough to provoke isn't necessarily performing the move - as I've pointed out that physical motion can indeed happen in the game that does not get assigned to actions. Things in the game can happen that are not accounted for by actions - this must be true, or all kinds of things in the game would cease to make any kind of sense (dodge bonus to A.C., -4 to hit a mob in melee with an ally, etc.)
To be clear, I'm saying your way is perfectly acceptable and does make sense. My way is equally acceptable. I'm breaking no rule by not defining things ahead of time.
|
|
My way is equally acceptable. I'm breaking no rule by not defining things ahead of time.
It doesn't matter how many times you make this assertion, you are still wrong.
You are inventing a new concept ('declaring an action', or beginning to do something without it actually being an action, or ...) which has no basis in the game rules, and saying that's what triggers the AoO.
You're wrong. The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.
In particular, moving no distance (because you got stopped) still uses up your move action, whether you were stopped by an AoO, by running into an invisible wall, or for any other reason. You tried to move, which means you used a move action.
Moving enough to provoke isn't necessarily performing the move
I don't think so. Moving enough to provoke must be considered a use of the move action, or at the very least 5 feet of it.
If not, then a tank would be able to sacrifice himself by repetedly starting to move, not spend his move action, absorving the damage, to exaust all the AoO of the enemies in range. (I know it may not seem like the best tactic, but who knows, it's an option that probably should not exist)
Normaly, when we talk about interrupting movement we're talking about trip, right? I see trip as a trade-off. I spend an AoO as a trip in trade of a damaging attack so the enemy will lose his move action instead of HP. If the enemy can then just move again, I've been ripped off.
... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.
Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else. None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.
I don't have to go back and reconcile the triggers to the AoO. Nothing is making anyone do that.
That's what others are inventing, some overall checking system that says you have to go back and make sure it all could have played out in a step-by-step way. That's the invention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.
Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else. None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.
I don't have to go back and reconcile the triggers to the AoO. Nothing is making anyone do that.
That's what others are inventing, some overall checking system that says you have to go back and make sure it all could have played out in a step-by-step way. That's the invention.
I bolded the error you are making. There is nothing in the rules that allows you to consider an in-progress action as "not having ever really taken the action". Yes, there are ways to interrupt the in-progress action so that you effectively do nothing with it but it is still an in-progress action.
Anguish, you can't break the potion until after it is out. So, you could not break it due to the retrieve action. You could break it during the standard action, which would just mean you break it before he drinks it.
No one, including me, would dispute the bottle is broken.
Which is why if you're tripped as you leave a square, that action was committed, and you can't insert your other move action to stand (back) up, then resume movement.
Basically, the way I view AoO is that they resolve before the action that triggered them. That doesn't mean they take place 100% before any of that action took place. They simply interrupt it.
With trip-locking, I just explain that the stand-er-up-er has barely left the ground, so any trip attempt won't meaningfully change their state.
I see 2 assertions:
1. (before we take the tripping AoO into account) That moving and suddenly finding yourself unable to move out of your square (i.e. invisible wall, tripping on your own accord, getting tripped, etc.) is counted as a move action.
I don’t see any rules supporting that this is right or wrong. Nothing in the action definitions or anywhere else makes is absolutely compulsory to treat this as a move action. I’ve seen examples that reason it both ways. And I’ve demonstrated that things can indeed happen on a turn within your square that are not assigned as actions. It is completely reasonable for a GM to say that it is, or that it isn’t. You’re preferred way is not rule. So, treating or not treating it as a move action is within RAW. (as far as I’ve seen)
2. That once a character moving is viewed as a move action during a turn, that it cannot later be viewed as something else to come into alignment with what is actually happening.
I also just don’t see where any game rules prevent you from doing this as long as the player still ends up only taking the total allowed number and type of actions that he can take. Unless an effect, spell, sup ability or something specifically says the character loses or ends its current action – I’m not seeing why this is breaking game rules. The character is moving, we’re treating it as a move action (if you must), it provokes, the player is tripped and dropped in that same square. Now, by odd chance of how the trip worked, the character cannot continue what was viewed as a move action. Because of this, they fall under #1 above – that is, he’s moved in his square but has not made it out – and it can be viewed as not a move action.
It was a move action when it provoked – now things have changed and because of what really happened it is no longer viewed as a move action. That’s it. I don’t see what is wrong with this. The fact that an AoO occurred doesn’t mean anything except that an AoO occurred. Thinking about how it all went down and realizing there is a paradox doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t compel you to do anything. It’s an anomaly of what happened and you really can leave it at that within RAW.
thundercade,
You chose the "Move" move action, you tried to move, got tripped, went zero feet. You may now continue to use your "Move" move action..IF POSSIBLE. If not possible, sucks to be you.
Please show where in the rules it allows you to change your action from one type to another (not including Full Attack becoming a Standard attack which is a special case). Please show where it even hints at this.
The game rules do not need to prevent it, it is understood that you were performing an action and in the course of that action you were prevented from performing it further. That does not allow you to 'take the action back'.
You are trying to use 'after the fact' logic to determine what action was taken.
Where in the game is this demonstrated? It isn't.
You choose an action, you execute the action. You do not execute an action and then decide what action type it was.
|
|
Thundercade - there's really no point continuing the discussion.
It can be summed up in the following claim you made:
It was a move action when it provoked – now things have changed and because of what really happened it is no longer viewed as a move action.
We all understand this is how you want things to be. But there is nothing in the rules to support your misinterpretation. You've been told this multiple times, but still refuse to accept it.
Do what you want in your own home games. But this is the rules forum, where we talk about the actual rules of Pathfinder. And those rules talk about actions provoking. In order to provoke, you must have taken an action that provokes - you don't get to change it to something else later, or pretend you haven't even taken an action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John F., This is a rules forum where we INTERRUPT the rules. Sometimes the majority is correct, sometimes the minority is correct.
Thundercade and myself, may be completely incorrect, but we are not just making things up. You may not give any validity to our conclusions, but it is unfair to just dismiss our claims as "homebrew".
I clearly used support in all of my arguments. Again, you may not agree with the support or the conclusion, and that is valid, but my argument, and Thunercade's by extension, is not based on "how we want it" but rather "how we interrupt all the information".
Komoda, I think you meant "interpret the rules" rather than "interrupt the rules". :)
JohnF, continued discussion may or may not be pointless. If it generates additional FAQ clicks I am ok with pointless discussion that beats the dead horse (as long as it is polite).
Yes, on both counts. Silly auto-correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Readied actions interrupt actions; but the assertion that an action must be complete in order to have been spent is spurious.
I've scanned the thread and I didn't see this example: if you ready an action to interrupt a spell, and succeed, does the spellcaster simply get to cast again? If a new move action is granted because the first move action wasn't "actually used", then why wouldn't this wizard get to cast another spell because he didn't "actually use" his standard action.
Or simply: if you are facing an opponent with infinite AoOs, can you keep attempting to leave a threatened square for as many times as it takes for you to succeed or die?
For instance (assumes 30' movement): Charging someone 40' away.
The player declares a charge and moves 20' when,
the GM says, "now that you are closer, a readied action spell goes off and you see an obscured pit 10' in front of you."
The player stops his charge.My line:
I would allow the player to convert the charge (full round action) into a move action and finish out his turn.Your line: (Please correct if I am mistaken)
You would allow the player to stop the charge, but they have lost their full round action.
If the pit spell was readied to cast against the charging character at some point in their movement, the game mechanics give them a saving throw to avoid falling in. Neither action above is how I would rule. The charging character rolls a save. If they do, they avoid the pit and get to pick where they leaped to avoid it, per the spell. If they don't, they couldn't stop in time and fell in.
Both "my line" or "your line" are the same as saying a character gets to change their move action after a trap goes off to not set off the trap.
There are specific rules that say casing a spell in interrupted and the spell is lost.
Also, according to the Wizards 3.5 Rules of the Game the AoO happens before the triggering action. Loosing a spell that was attempted to be cast due to an AoO is explicitly called out as an exception in the Rules of the Game article. If it was not an exception, and you lost most actions that you attempt, why would it have to be called out as an exception?
Yeah, I tried to describe the whole as 10' away from the time you notice it so you would have time to stop. If something happens calling for a save, of course you would have to make the save.
But apparently you agree with the idea of changing a declared action to another type if the battlefield conditions change. Drawing the line of when and what you can change is pretty much what this thread is all about. It started with AoOs but it also applies to Readied Actions and changing or misunderstood battlefield conditions.
(1) So what if the spell is lost? That's what I get for cutting for space... Where's the rule that says the standard action has been lost? The point is to give a clear example of an action being lost by interruption to illustrate that "partial but incomplete actions cost nothing" is not a good assumption.
Same: I use unarmed strike without the super-duper feat. Guy smacks me. Do I still get to punch him again? I mean, my action wasn't complete, so...
(2) I don't agree with the declared action language.
If there's a question here, it's whether you can use movement in discrete chunks if your movement is interrupted.
Bob is moving 30' forward to attack Fred. Jane readies an action to move 10' in front of Bob with her tower shield as soon as he moves toward Fred. Bob moves, Jane steps in his way.
Is Bob free to now walk around Jane? Can he choose to tumble past her, decide to overrun Jane? One of these is about changing how he uses movement in discrete chunks. The last is changing the type of action.
This is like the intent of your pit example, I think.
I'd avoid all of that mess and just go with no. The game happens in discrete chunks. The movement that happened here is Bob moved forward, and Jane used her turn to "check" him. He doesn't get to use the "rest of his movement", or trade it in for something else.
tl/dr: The character in OP's post used their move action and was tripped. They don't have another move action to crawl because having 30' of movement is not the same as "5 discrete move actions".
(edit: dog sent post while I was in the laundry room)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else
... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.
.
Can you see where you've gone wrong there? Trying to move did have a mechanical effect: it provoked an AoO! You really did try to move, and you're not allowed to even try to move unless you take an Action In Combat which permits a move, or you take a 5-foot step. Therefore, if you tried to move (and we know you did, because it has the mechanical effect of provoking) then you must have been taking an Action In Combat that allows you to move but doesn't stop you provoking. And that action must have been a definate action, or you wouldn't be able to start moving.
None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.
It's the other way around. You cannot try to move unless you are taking an Action In Combat which allows such a move, or a 5-foot step.
When playing Pathfinder you either play by PF rules or you're not playing Pathfinder! Not playing PF is okay, but you can't come to the rules forum and pretend that you are.
The rules don't care about some things; they have no rules for shaving or going to the toilet, or the consequences of not doing so. I'm happy that they don't. But they care very much about combat! So much so, that the combat rules are permissive. That means that you can't take any Action In Combat unless the rules say you can. There is no excuse of 'but they don't say I can't, so I can!' No, if the rules don't say you can (in combat) then you can't.
You can't do anything in combat that is defined in the rules (like moving from your square, or trying to) unless you are taking an Action In Combat that permits it (or a 5-foot step). By trying to move, you have already committed to a definate, defined Action In Combat. You are already doing that action when you try to do whatever provoked the AoO. It's too late to do a different Action In Combat by then.
The idea that you can move your mini around the battlefield and decide what action it must have been later is not permitted by the Parhfinder rulesset. It doesn't have to say it's not allowed, it is not allowed simply because it is not a written option.
Just saying no results in two things (IMHO):
1) It makes the trip lock possible. This was such a huge misconception in 3.5 that even licensed D&D video games had this as one valid tactic.
2) If Jane can "check" Bob, it creates a world where all reactions are faster than actual actions.
In your "Same" example, you do get to smack him. The AoO does not preclude you from hitting him. Even if he knocks you on your butt with trip, you can hit him. As such, I do not understand the argument.
I would rule that Bob is clearly allowed to walk around Jane. In the Readied rules it states that the original character can continue with their actions. Why wouldn't Bob be able to walk around her?
I guess it comes down to whether you have to declare your movement "pathing" before you move or if you have the ability to make movement decisions during each individual step. Does that seem correct?
As to the trip, can they continue their move action as long as they do not have to stand up to do so? Is that the defining factor? Could the character that got tripped burrow, crawl, fly, climb, or swim? Consider the previous to all be available with appropriate movement speeds, not move actions.
The rule that says you lose the standard action is:
If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.[/q]
I get what you're saying Malachi, I just disagree. I don't think I am making up rules. I think I am using all the information provided, including reverse engineering the Paizo trip lock FAQ, the original 3.5 FAQ and the 3.5 Rules of the Game from the Sage himself, Skip Williams, to come to my interpretation. I have found absolutely no evidence from Paizo or anyone on these two forums that counters the 3.5 rules. The Pathfinder rules in the CRB are word-for-word, coma-for-coma, exactly the same as the 3.5 PHB.
I assure you, I do not believe I am "making up rules" or "playing a different game".
I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.
Komoda, you keep citing the trip lock as if that somehow supports your stance. It doesn't since it functions independant of either camp's logic.
Breaking it down:
1) Person states they are standing up (verbal declaration).
2) The move action to stand up is in progress (not yet resolved).
3) AoO occurs while the move action to stand up is in progress (AoO is resolved).
At this point the move action to stand up has not completed it's resolution, so the person is still prone.
4) Stand up is resolved (completed). Now they are not prone.
Thus, the trip lock FAQ does not support your stance.
Note: I am not stating it supports ours either, I am just saying you cannot keep using it as a support for your own.
I'm with the majority on this: Provoking identifies that some action economy was 'spent', otherwise the provoke could not happen.
The trip-lock rules clarify that you're spending the action to stand up, but that the AoO occurs before you complete the action, then you get to complete the action.
For moving from your starting space, you have a number of standard choices, and possibly some not standard ones:
1) 5' step - does not provoke
2) Charge action - can provoke
3) Move action - can provoke
If you provoke and are tripped, it seems clear that you have already 'spent' the action economy cost to attempt to complete that action. Thus, I believe by RAW, you can only either complete the action (5' crawl if that's what you want to do now that you're on the ground), or end it for no gain. You don't get the "currency" of the action economy cost back to spend again.
What I'm seeing as the fundamentals of Komoda's argument is:
A) Attempt to move
B) Get interrupted
C) No spend of action economy cost
This isn't supported by any RAW examples, and we have a counterexample (spellcasting) that doesn't support this and a clarification (trip-locking) that is merely clarifying the effect & timing of the interrupt with the status - it clearly says the action completes after the interrupt and is silent about any ability to 'take back' the action after the interrupt.
Let's look at (3) again: Your character has multiple movement modes. Your character is standing waist-deep in a stream, and could 3a) move, 3b) swim, 3c) fly, or 3d) burrow. You declare a move action and identify your first square of movement, intending to walk away from your square. This provokes from an invisible opponent (maybe with reach 10' away on the shore). The opponent trips you. You are now prone in the stream.
I can see a possible case for, now that you're prone, continuing via your swim speed - but I think that's table rules, not RAW.
IMHO you didn't declare you were flying, or swimming or burrowing, so you don't get to continue your movement using those modes. You could however use a second move action (if available) to start movement in one of those modes.
Is moving 10' by walking and then 20' by flying more than one move action?
Assume 30' land speed and 60' fly speed.
It should be apparent by now that this is a good FAQ candidate because even if all the people that oppose my position are correct, there are still so many different positions on what EXACTLY is allowed by the rules, what is made up, and what is table variance.
Just saying no results in two things (IMHO):
1) It makes the trip lock possible. This was such a huge misconception in 3.5 that even licensed D&D video games had this as one valid tactic.
I'm afraid I disagree. Refusing to grant a tripped character a new move action to crawl away is not the same thing as allowing the character standing up to continue standing up after a trip attempt provoked by standing up.
Just to run through the logic: prone guy uses move action to stand up, provokes attack. Mean guy coverts AoO to trip. Since the AoO interrupts the action, even if he succeeds, he makes a prone guy prone. Prone guy is interrupted, but is "capable of continuing his action" which is standing up.
So... we don't need to grant prone guy another action. If you need the quote, it's the one you referred to (and it's quoted below).
2) If Jane can "check" Bob, it creates a world where all reactions are faster than actual actions.
I understand your concern, but disagree. Readied actions represent someone putting their energy into interrupting something they expect. This is the mechanic of the game - otherwise characters would have to do initiative checks every time someone wanted to try to prevent someone from doing something.
Plus, that's the opportunity cost of readying.
In your "Same" example, you do get to smack him. The AoO does not preclude you from hitting him. Even if he knocks you on your butt with trip, you can hit him. As such, I do not understand the argument.
Apologies if I was unclear. The point is, you don't get another standard action to do with whatever you want. You can't say: oh, I got hit by that AoO for trying to punch him, since I was interrupted, instead I use a move and a standard to drink this potion in my pocket! And he already used his AoO on my punch attempt if he doesn't have combat reflexes he can't take an AoO on my potion drinking! Yah!
I would rule that Bob is clearly allowed to walk around Jane. In the Readied rules it states that the original character can continue with their actions. Why wouldn't Bob be able to walk around her?
I think Bob can go around her, if Jane's an idiot... But he isn't granted another action, and it doesn't have anything to do with what he declared. I'd use the full attack rule here as precedent, i.e., you can 5' in the middle of a full attack depending on the outcome of your attacks, etc. In this case, Bob can alter his path, until another rule intervenes (like he leaves a square Jane threatens).
The thing is that we don't want trees of readied actions. If Jane's character says, I ready to charge in front of him as soon as he reaches square X, that's how it goes down. We can't say that 5' into Jane's charge, Bob gets to decide not to keep moving or to use his fly speed to go straight up...
That's the strength of readied actions. Otherwise, there be dragons...
As to the trip, can they continue their move action as long as they do not have to stand up to do so? Is that the defining factor? Could the character that got tripped burrow, crawl, fly, climb, or swim? Consider the previous to all be available with appropriate movement speeds, not move actions.
I think the trip lock thing is taken care of in another way. And characters who can fly who have been tripped are doing it wrong ;)
The rule that says you lose the standard action is:
If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.
Ah. The quoted rule there just defines what it means to lose the spell. It doesn't say you've lost the action, which is what I'm trying to say. The books don't spell out "you lose your standard action", but it makes sense.
And the hitting example is also about actions. Do I get a new standard action every time my punch is interrupted?
You reference this:
If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
"he is still capable of doing so"... there's nothing keeping the prone guy who was tripped while prone from continuing to stand up because nothing has happened to him. It's silly, but that's how the fix works.
Look, it makes no sense to me that when you Acrobatics to AoO and you fail, you get the AoO and you get stopped, whereas if you just move through the space, you take the hit and keep going...
Look, it makes no sense to me that when you Acrobatics to AoO and you fail, you get the AoO and you get stopped, whereas if you just move through the space, you take the hit and keep going...
I assume you mean when you use acrobatics to try and avoid taking an AoO. But there is no such rule as you describe above.
If you use acrobatics to try and move THROUGH an opponents space and fail, you trigger an AoO and lose your move. But the normal rule is you can't move THROUGH an opponent at all.
Failing your acrobatics to move through a foes threatened area doesn't stop you from moving if you get hit.
I would think that the "just as if you had cast it" part would be the part that says you lose the standard action that you would have lost if "you had cast it."