Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Totally contradictory.
Full Disclosure, I didn't think they would rule this way.
But there is no contradiction.
Moving from an adjacent square to inside a square of an opponent provokes two ways:
Leaving and Adjacent Square
Entering an Enemy's Space
There is a movement based AoO general rule that if you make movement, the same action can't provoke more than once.
If you avoid the AoO for leaving a square with a 5 ft step, that doesn't avoid the other AoO for entering the square.
Once they answered the question, it does seem very neat, clean, and orderly with no contradiction.
In mathematics, I learned that a line has length, but no width or depth. It exists in just one dimension. Infinitely thin, you might say.
The line between square A and adjacent square B is infinitely thin. Yet, somehow, crossing it NORMALLY provokes two separate AoOs if B is occupied by a creature, but only one if B is not. Those two AoOs are caused by one event, crossing that infinitely thin line.
Then we say if you cross that infinitely thin line with one special kind of move, a 5'Step, then you only provoke once. Just because.
And finally, we say that even if you do provoke twice, the enemy can only take one AoO, presumably because crossing an infinitely thin line takes infinitely little time and there isn't enough time to make two AoOs in infinitely little time, unless your AoOs are infinitely fast - and if they are, then you should be able to take an infinite number of AoOs every time anyone provokes. Which you can't, so, that's why.
All of which is silly. Except the mathematics part. That's pretty cool.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I understand what you're saying, but I don't feel it really makes sense.
Well, then I'm not sure of the purpose of this thread continuing if that is so.
We have an answer. It wasn't the answer I expected, since I read the "Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity" I assumed mean any AoO for any movement based action.
We now know, that doesn't include the "entering an enemy space" AoO.
In mathematics, I learned that a line has length, but no width or depth. It exists in just one dimension. Infinitely thin, you might say.
The line between square A and adjacent square B is infinitely thin. Yet, somehow, crossing it NORMALLY provokes two separate AoOs if B is occupied by a creature, but only one if B is not. Those two AoOs are caused by one event, crossing that infinitely thin line.
Then we say if you cross that infinitely thin line with one special kind of move, a 5'Step, then you only provoke once. Just because.
And finally, we say that even if you do provoke twice, the enemy can only take one AoO, presumably because crossing an infinitely thin line takes infinitely little time and there isn't enough time to make two AoOs in infinitely little time, unless your AoOs are infinitely fast - and if they are, then you should be able to take an infinite number of AoOs every time anyone provokes. Which you can't, so, that's why.
All of which is silly. Except the mathematics part. That's pretty cool.
I'm not sure why this is any sillier than saying that if you cross this line, you provoke. But if you cross this line while moving with a special kind of movement (5' step), you don't. Just because.
It's the same set up. You don't have any problems with that scenario. Still the same infinitely thin line. Still moving across it. Yet in one setting you provoke, and the other you don't. So why is it necessarily incomprehensible now that we've added another factor to the equation, that really doesn't impact anything that happens in the first scenario?
I'm not really advocating what should or should not have been with how this FAQ was answered; I just don't think it's really all that contradictory or confusing. Their ultimate point: Entering into an occupied space provokes. It's not a special subset of leaving a square, or a simple reminder that leaving a square provokes, as you previously characterized it. It's a separate trigger. And since 5' step doesn't reference vitiating this particular trigger, it doesn't. But, since it is still defined by the PDT as a provocation based upon your movement, the "you only provoke once regardless based on your movement" clause kicks in. Sure it's "just because". But it's no more or less arbitrary than anything else we've got in the rulebooks.
It seems the discussion has spread a bit from the original question. By my reading, the FAQ merely upholds rules that are already written, and does not address the use of Acrobatics to avoid the AoO (or both AoO's, as the case may be), which I still believe is allowed.
For reference:
Moving Through a Square
…
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
Ending Your Movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
…
Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).
Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.
Designated Exceptions: Some creatures break the above rules. A creature that completely fills the squares it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Acrobatics skill or similar special abilities.
A.) The part about being Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny overrules the part about being unable to end your turn in an occupied square, but does not modify the part about Tumbling.
B.) Tumbling requires that the user be trained in Acrobatics, which helps the Poison Frog but not the poor Stirge.
C.) Moving through occupied squares is called out as being a trigger for AoO's here, so it does make sense that the PDT would double-down on it with their ruling.
This is debatable. That rule is in the "Cross Narrow Surfaces/Uneven Ground" section and there's no reason to assume it applies to other uses of Acrobatics - if the authors wanted it to be applied to all uses, they would have (should have) put this sentence elsewhere.Interesting. Honestly, the whole skill needs a re-write as I've seen people in several threads believe all sorts of different things.
Our group has always applied the 'take damage while using Acrobatics, make another Acrobatics check' sentence to every use of Acrobatics since it seemed like a logical thing & something that should be a cpnstant.
(although frankly the DC should be based on the damage rather than simply re-doing the same DC)
Since that line actually comes in the first paragraph, it only describe moving across a narrow ledge. It follows the line "While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)," (which no one has ever tried to apply to any other use of Acrobatics), and the next paragraph introduces a completely new topic with the words "In addition."
There's no indication that we should read that sentence as applying to all uses of Acrobatics, and a few very strong indicators that it does not. Honestly, it would be a good question on a critical reading test, but the "correct" answer on such a test would be "This sentence only applies to the first use of Acrobatics."
Standard disclaimer: in your home games, you should run it however you like.