|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've yet to see you naysayers provide a reasonable interpretation for this phrase:
'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'
grant: to give something
more: extra, additional
Just what the hell do you guys claim this sentence means? Nothing?
I have repeatedly told you what I believe it means. What do you find unreasonable about this interpretation? Unless you can tell me specifically why you do not find it even remotely plausible, I cannot continue this discussion because there's simply no new points to argue.
If you didn't have a Fortuitous weapon, you would only be able to take one AoO per provoking action. Thus, the Fortuitous weapon allows you to make an extra AoO that you would not have been able to make earlier. I have a bloodrager who gets 2 AoO per round, and even with a reach weapon and Snake Fang I find I more often run into situations where only one AoO is provoked than situations where 3 or more are provoked. Fortuitous would therefore, in most situations, allow me to make more AoO.
I am fighting one opponent. I have 2 AoO per round. The opponent leaves my threatened square. I make an AoO against him. With a Fortuitous weapon, I make a second AoO at a -5 penalty (consuming my second available AoO). I have now made more AoO this round thanks to my Fortuitous weapon.
...the opportunity to take more than one AoO per provoking action results in more AoOs taken, even if you're still limited by the same maximum number of AoO in a round.
I've yet to see you naysayers provide a reasonable interpretation for this phrase:
'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'
grant: to give something
more: extra, additional
Just what the hell do you guys claim this sentence means? Nothing?
Normally I can make 1 attack of opportunity if someone moves from a threatened square. This weapon lets me make 2 attacks of opportunity if someone moves from a threatened square. 2 is more than 1. Now I must still be able to make the second attack as this item isn't granting me an AoO an increase in the maximum number of attacks of opportunity I can make a round. But it's increasing the amount I can make per provocation.
|
|
Because the attack is taken as a normal AoO, just with an additional penalty. Unlike Panther Claw, you don't get to attack for non-provoking actions using the enchantment.
Effectively, it gives you a free iterative AoO.
That's why it's called an AoO.
What does it mean to take something as an AoO, if not that you can take a specific number of AoO per round?
Frankly, I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I'll choose to disengage with you at this point.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm truly wanting to understand why you feel they aren't allowed to work that way. I feel that you would be supportive of such interpretations. And thus you fighting with them is confusing. Especially since I am trying to apply the same logic you're using on fortuitous with them. If you do not reply to this I'll be sad to not understand, as I'd love to know what you feel the difference between them are.
I told you what I found unreasonable about it.It's patently false for the majority of PCs.
Even for PCs with combat reflexes, it DOES NOT give you more AoOs, it allows you to use the AoOs you have in more situations.
Therefore in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs.
I have combat reflexes that give me 3 AoOs. 3 monsters provoke moving through my area. How many AoOs do I get with the Fortuitous enchantment?
I have combat reflexes that give me 3 AoOs. 1 monster provokes moving from a threatened square? How many do you get with the fortuitous?
Frankly, I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I'll choose to disengage with you at this point.I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm truly wanting to understand why you feel they aren't allowed to work that way. I feel that you would be supportive of such interpretations. And thus you fighting with them is confusing. Especially since I am trying to apply the same logic you're using on fortuitous with them. If you do not reply to this I'll be sad to not understand, as I'd love to know what you feel the difference between them are.Actually, no. I pointed out why you logic was, in fact, not logical. That the Fortuitous enchantment specifically altered your AoOs, whereas none of the other things you listed did anything of the sort. They didn't alter your spellcasting, they didn't alter your ki points.
You disregarded my comment and proceeded to spin off into absurdities.
I didn't disregard you comments. I completely addressed them. The spell story specifically allows you to cast any spell into it. And the ki intensifying specifically says I can spend a ki point.
See this is the part I can't understand yet. If you feel that these abilities don't do what they say they do if you don't have the normal resources to do so why do you feel that that fortuitous allows you to make another AoO if you don't normally have the resources to do so?
I have combat reflexes that give me 3 AoOs. 1 monster provokes moving from a threatened square? How many do you get with the fortuitous?
I told you what I found unreasonable about it.It's patently false for the majority of PCs.
Even for PCs with combat reflexes, it DOES NOT give you more AoOs, it allows you to use the AoOs you have in more situations.
Therefore in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs.
I have combat reflexes that give me 3 AoOs. 3 monsters provoke moving through my area. How many AoOs do I get with the Fortuitous enchantment?
1 more than you would get normally.
Now answer my question.
Wait now I'm confused, you specifically just said that it "in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs", that it only allowed you to spend them differently. But now you're saying I got more AoO. Can you explain whats going on to help clear this up for me please?
But for your question, three, 2 on the first monster, which is more AoO than normal against it, 1 on the second and 0 on the third. (Or you could do 1, 1, 1 or any combination leading to 3)
|
|
I told you what I found unreasonable about it.
It's patently false for the majority of PCs.
Even for PCs with combat reflexes, it DOES NOT give you more AoOs, it allows you to use the AoOs you have in more situations.
Therefore in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs.
It's not the only weapon that leads with a general statement that is not true for all users:
A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger.
But only if you have the rage ability, otherwise it won't focus your anger.
Or try armour:
A suit of armor or shield with this special ability hides living animals within its iconography to keep it safe.
But only if that animal is granted by a class feature.
These abilities proceed to clarify exactly how the item does the general thing described in the first sentence. For example, the furious weapon increases its enhancement bonus when its wielder uses rage. The Fortuitous Weapon lets you take a second AoO against an opponent you have just taken an AoO against.
The fact that it says "you can make more AoO" doesn't guarantee all users will be able to make more AoO in all situations.
After all, if no one provokes in the round, you get no AoO, with or without Fortuitous.
Once again you disregarded my comment.
None of the enchantments you listed modified your ability to cast spell or have ki points.
Does Spellstoring grant the ability to cast spells? No.
Does the Ki enchantment grant ki points? No.
Does Fortuitous grant more AoOs? Yes.
Do you see that word grant? Do you realize that it means to 'give' something to the wielder? In the case of Fortuitous it 'gives' them an extra AoO, something that they didn't have previously.
If you don't understand this simple distinction, I'm really...
Sorry, any comment disregarding wasn't intentional. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
You are correct that they don't modify my ability to cast spell or give me a ki pool.
But do you realize that the word can means, "to be able to do" something by the wielder? In the case of if spellstoring it makes me "be able to" cast any spell into it. and ki intesifying it makes me "be able to" spend a ki point. Both are things they weren't able to do previously.
But I do understand more the distinction you were making focusing on 'grant'
|
|
What does it mean to take something as an AoO, if not that you can take a specific number of AoO per round?Because the attack is taken as a normal AoO, just with an additional penalty. Unlike Panther Claw, you don't get to attack for non-provoking actions using the enchantment.
Effectively, it gives you a free iterative AoO.
That's why it's called an AoO.
? It means that you get an extra AoO to attack at a -5 during an action that provokes. I don't know how any more clear I can be, since I essentially just repeated myself.
What would you call it?
If it doesn't count against the number of AoO you can take in a turn, I would call it a free attack.
As in:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack with this weapon against that foe as a free action at a –5 penalty.
This is clearer and more concise. Why was this wording not used, if it's not meant to be limited by the number of AoO you can take in a round?
Once again you disregarded my comment.
None of the enchantments you listed modified your ability to cast spell or have ki points.
Does Spellstoring grant the ability to cast spells? No.
Does the Ki enchantment grant ki points? No.
Does Fortuitous grant more AoOs? Yes.
Do you see that word grant? Do you realize that it means to 'give' something to the wielder? In the case of Fortuitous it 'gives' them an extra AoO, something that they didn't have previously.
If you don't understand this simple distinction, I'm really...
Sorry, any comment disregarding wasn't intentional. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
You are correct that they don't modify my ability to cast spell or give me a ki pool.
But do you realize that the word can means, "to be able to do" something by the wielder? In the case of if spellstoring it makes me "be able to" cast any spell into it. and ki intesifying it makes me "be able to" spend a ki point. Both are things they weren't able to do previously.
But I do understand more the distinction you were making focusing on 'grant'
Well of course, that's the key word in the enchantment description. It's the word that is absent in all of the enchantments that you listed, it's the word that is absent in all of the other feats that talk about AoOs.
It literally means to 'give' something to the wielder, that something being 'more' AoOs in the form of a free iterative AoO.
On the other hand, the word 'can' ALWAYS has the inherent limitation of the governing rules. Nothing in any of the comparisons you listed has modified those governing rules, unlike the Fortuitous enchantment which, quite literally, gives you something that you didn't have previously.
but I feel that 'can' is giving me the ability to do something I didn't have. Where is it that can is limited by the governing rules?
|
|
I agree that wording seems clearer to me as well. There may be specific pathfinder rules concerning AoOs that they wanted this extra attack to fall under. Off the top of my head, the ability to interrupt actions.
For example, a spellcaster starts to cast a spell I get an AoO with a Fortuitous weapon. I hit, great! Damn, he made his concentration roll. Ok, now I get a free attack.
When does it go off? If it's not an AoO, there's nothing to say that it interrupts the spell and has a chance to disrupt it. It's certainly not a 'readied action'. However, if it is classified as an AoO, then the timing is already adjudicated in the rules.
You've already hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, therefore you're already interrupting the action. EDIT: if it's a free action triggered by your AoO it can also interrupt, just like if you ready an action to cast a touch spell you can deliver that touch (a free action made in the same round as casting) as an interruption. If you think this is in doubt we can start another thread.
The other thing that occurs to me is that you can't take AoO in certain situations, such as when you are blind. However, since you have to hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, those are also not a factor.
3 is not more than 3, therefore not only did the enchantment not 'grant' you 'more' AoOs as it says, it actually degraded your ability because you took a -5 on one of the AoOs that you otherwise would not have.
Wait now I'm confused, you specifically just said that it "in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs", that it only allowed you to spend them differently. But now you're saying I got more AoO. Can you explain whats going on to help clear this up for me please?Dude, follow along. YOUR interpretation does not grant you additional AoOs, as demonstrated by 3 is not more than 3.
MY interpretation, which is how I answered your question DOES grant additional AoOs, as 2 is more than 1.
No matter what scenario you offer up (as long as an AoO is provoked) my interpretation will ALWAYS allow one more AoO than otherwise would have been allowed.
Only a very small subsection of scenarios that I present to you will you be better off with a Fortuitous enchantment than without, using your interpretation.
In short: my interpretation == 'more' AoOs 'granted' in every AoO scenario
your interpretation == extra AoO allowed in very limited circumstances
In fact, in some small subset of cases, your interpretation is WORSE for the wielder than just having combat reflexes.
but didn't you just say that it granted me 'more' AoO to do two attacks on the one guy? But I still have one or even two available, how did it allow me to make more? I'm sorry that I have difficulty in keeping up with you :(
Yeah, thanks for demonstrating your bad faith once again.
wait, what did I do too show bad faith? I'm sorry I can't see things as clearly as you do on this. If you have something that shows or explains that can is limited then it makes sense why there's a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that wording seems clearer to me as well. There may be specific pathfinder rules concerning AoOs that they wanted this extra attack to fall under. Off the top of my head, the ability to interrupt actions.
For example, a spellcaster starts to cast a spell I get an AoO with a Fortuitous weapon. I hit, great! Damn, he made his concentration roll. Ok, now I get a free attack.
When does it go off? If it's not an AoO, there's nothing to say that it interrupts the spell and has a chance to disrupt it. It's certainly not a 'readied action'. However, if it is classified as an AoO, then the timing is already adjudicated in the rules.
You've already hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, therefore you're already interrupting the action.
The other thing that occurs to me is that you can't take AoO in certain situations, such as when you are blind. However, since you have to hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, those are also not a factor.
What? Where in RAW does it say that free attacks interrupt actions? Readied attacks, sure. AoOs, sure. But 'free attacks'? I don't think so. If you have RAW otherwise, feel free to link it. If you can't find it, which I don't think you'll be able to, then surely you have to agree that this provides the motivation for the somewhat more complex words classifying this free attack as an AoO.
Sure, Fortuitous doesn't change what provokes, it just gives you an extra iterative AoO.
oh I have the answer to this one. There's a FAQ that says if a monster has the grab ability on its attack then he can make the free grapple attack off of an AoO hit as part of that interrupt action
There is no mention of a "free AoO", but I do think that was the intent. I suggest everyone press the FAQ button if you have not already done so.
Debating it is something I won't be doing because I don't think I can prove anything.
oh I have the answer to this one. There's a FAQ that says if a monster has the grab ability on its attack then he can make the free grapple attack off of an AoO hit as part of that interrupt actionI agree that wording seems clearer to me as well. There may be specific pathfinder rules concerning AoOs that they wanted this extra attack to fall under. Off the top of my head, the ability to interrupt actions.
For example, a spellcaster starts to cast a spell I get an AoO with a Fortuitous weapon. I hit, great! Damn, he made his concentration roll. Ok, now I get a free attack.
When does it go off? If it's not an AoO, there's nothing to say that it interrupts the spell and has a chance to disrupt it. It's certainly not a 'readied action'. However, if it is classified as an AoO, then the timing is already adjudicated in the rules.
You've already hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, therefore you're already interrupting the action.
The other thing that occurs to me is that you can't take AoO in certain situations, such as when you are blind. However, since you have to hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, those are also not a factor.
What? Where in RAW does it say that free attacks interrupt actions? Readied attacks, sure. AoOs, sure. But 'free attacks'? I don't think so. If you have RAW otherwise, feel free to link it. If you can't find it, which I don't think you'll be able to, then surely you have to agree that this provides the motivation for the somewhat more complex words classifying this free attack as an AoO.
Sure, Fortuitous doesn't change what provokes, it just gives you an extra iterative AoO.
Yes, this FAQ does exist. I just found out about it within the last week.
|
|
What? Where in RAW does it say that free attacks interrupt actions? Readied attacks, sure. AoOs, sure. But 'free attacks'? I don't think so. If you have RAW otherwise, feel free to link it. If you can't find it, which I don't think you'll be able to, then surely you have to agree that this provides the motivation for the somewhat more complex words classifying this free attack as an AoO.
It's not just a free attack, it's an attack made as a free action triggered by the AoO you just made.
Free Actions: Can you take free actions during an attack of opportunity? For instance, can you use the Grab, Trip, Pull, or Push universal monster rules after hitting with an attack of opportunity, since they require free actions and free actions can’t be used off-turn? What about Rock Catching? That seems like it could only work off-turn.
While you can’t take most free actions off your turn, Grab, Trip, Pull, Push, and Rock Catching’s free actions can all be used off-turn. This will be reflected in future errata.
Note the justification here. The relevant question is whether a particular free action can be performed off turn.
1) Fortuitous obviously can be used off turn, since it activated when you hit with an AoO. It makes zero sense to interpret "when you hit with an AoO, you can make an attack as a free action" as "when you hit with an AoO, you can make an attack as a free action sometime during your next turn" or even "when you hit with an AoO during your turn, you can make an attack as a free action."
2) Grab etc can be used off-turn, therefore they can be used with AoO.
3) Since Fortuitous can be activated off-turn, it can be used at the same time as an AoO, and specifically the AoO that activated it.
Except now you require yet another 'free action' which is neither FAQ'd nor generally allowed when it isn't your turn. I mean, they say right there "while you can't take most free actions off your turn". Don't you think they would have included free weapon attacks in that list if they wanted it there?
Then, to support this, you make the 'assumption' regarding the wording of Fortuitous that is already controversial.
1) It makes perfect sense with the current wording classifying the extra attacks as a AoO.
2) a free weapon attack is not a grab, nor is it a trip, pull, push, or rock catch.
3) assumption, not supported by raw unless you accept the AoO classification. Specifically, if you look at interrupting spellcasting, unless it's a full round cast time you need to use interrupting actions like AoOs or readied actions. Free weapon attacks are not listed as interrupting actions.
Wouldn't it make more sense to classify that extra attack as an extra AoO, and therefore bypass the issue with free actions? Don't you think this is a reasonable motivation why they chose that particular wording over what you suggested?
I mean, you can agree or disagree regarding the free action stuff, but surely you have to recognize that the classification of the extra AoO avoids a lot of hassle regarding the adjudication of free action attacks during your off-turn.
So it counts as an AoO for all things except for using up one of your AoO. Is this what you're saying?
|
|
1) It makes perfect sense with the current wording classifying the extra attacks as a AoO.
I think the current debate is proof that the current wording doesn't make perfect sense.
3) assumption, not supported by raw unless you accept the AoO classification. Specifically, if you look at interrupting spellcasting, unless it's a full round cast time you need to use interrupting actions like AoOs or readied actions. Free weapon attacks are not listed as interrupting actions.
(3) is a conclusion derived logically from premises (1) and (2). If you disagree with the premises, fine, but (3) itself is not an assumption.
(Premise 1) Free action X can be used off-turn.
(Premise 2) Free actions that can be used off-turn can be used during an AoO.
(Therefore) Free action X can be used during an AoO.
Alternatively since the whole point is looking for better wording, follow the example of Spell Storing:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can immediately make a second attack with this weapon against that foe as a free action at a –5 penalty.
There is no question of whether it is limited by the number of AoO you can make. There is no question when this attack takes place. It takes fewer words than the original and resolves all the possible ambiguities we have currently considered.
Do you see a problem with this wording? Do you agree that this is the wording that should have (and probably would have) been used if the only purpose of classifying the attack as an AoO was to indicate that it could interrupt other actions?
EDIT (this is moving way too fast for me):
It's unclear whether the AoO resulting from Fortuitous would count as an AoO "caused when you move out of or within a threatened area" so I don't find Mobility compelling.
|
|
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe as a at a –5 penalty. This attack doesn't count against the attacks of opportunity the wielder can make in a round.
This is much clearer and more specific than the ambiguous "allows the wielder to make more AoO in a round." I think I suggested it earlier, but if you really think it's important for the attack to count as an AoO for whatever corner cases, but not use an AoO attempt, this is the wording you use.
"More AoO" can be interpreted in more than one way and thus can't specifically overrule the general rule about AoO per round limits.
Another example: mobility
If the free attack is classified as an AoO, the opponent with mobility gets his dodge bonus, as he should.
If it's just a normal free action attack, he wouldn't.
That pretty much seals it for me. Using the simpler wording to classify it as just a free action attack would break it. There are probably other examples as well, but this should really be all that's necessary.
I agree that it is a free AoO, but the wording does not support it it. The wording just says you get an extra AoO at a -5. There should have been an extra line saying "You do not need combat reflexes....." or "You do need combat reflexes .....". That would have sealed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The solution to all this is that they should stop putting fluff text into items and abilities descriptions. There is always someone that will hung up onto them.
Well, except for that whole 'grant more AoOs' wording. For some reason, those words apparently have no meaning.
It's like claiming the bonus attack you get from TWF only applies if you are allowed more than one attack to begin with.
Except as you've stated that the weapon has granted you more AoO when you make 2 AoO on a guy that provoked once. Thus the words have meaning, it's just not as big a bonus as you'd like it to be.
The solution to all this is that they should stop putting fluff text into items and abilities descriptions. There is always someone that will hung up onto them.
I would say more often people dismiss text as fluff that later gets held up as an actual rule.
Well, except for that whole 'grant more AoOs' wording. For some reason, those words apparently have no meaning.
It's like claiming the bonus attack you get from TWF only applies if you are allowed more than one attack to begin with.
That still does not mean it is free. It is written loosely enough to be read either way. That fact that we both agree on the intent does not mean the writing is clear enough to be obvious.
|
|
It's not whether "more AoO" is fluff or rules.
The problem is that it's a general statement that could be specifically fulfilled in one of two ways:
1) You get more AoO per provoking opportunity.
2) You get more AoO than your normal maximum per round.
The text indicates that (1) is the case, and this is sufficient to make the statement "A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity" true.
It is not necessary for (2) to also be the case. There is no requirement for that statement to apply in all situations. A bane weapon "excels against certain foes", but I wouldn't expect a verminbane sword to help me fight a swarm of fine vermin, which are immune to weapon damage. Spell Storing allows you to store a spell in the weapon, but you still must follow the normal limitations of casting spells and if you can't somehow cast spells you can't use the Spell Storing weapon. These abilities are affected by limitations within the larger rules, and would need to specifically call out those limitations in order to break them.
|
|
I agree it's possible that the enhancement was intended to give you an AoO that doesn't count against the normal maximum. (In which case the wording should be fixed to reflect that)
However I think that would be more powerful than suggested by a +1 enhancement. (Which is why I believe my interpretation is correct.)
Mighty Cleaving
1) Only works when you have a specific, not very good feat
2) Gives you an extra attack when you are fighting three enemies adjacent to each other
3) The extra attack is at full BAB
4) The extra attack isn't compatible with Haste (because you use a standard action to cleave)
5) The extra attack is used against a different opponent.
6) The extra attack requires two consecutive hits.
Fortuitous (my reading)
1) Only works when you have a good, commonly taken feat, or a similar ability
2) Gives you an extra attack when your opponents provoke at least one AoO, but fewer than your maximum allowed AoO. (eg, one provocation if you have 2 AoO, one or two provocations if you have 3 AoO)
3) The extra attack is at BAB -5
4) The extra attack is compatible with Haste (because you can full attack and also get AoO)
5) The extra attack is used against someone you've already attacked, potentially piling quite a bit of damage on them. In some situations, this would allow a reach fighter to eliminate an approaching opponent before that opponent actually gets to attack them, since often one attack won't down a foe but a second will.
6) The extra attack requires one hit.
Fortuitous wins for 1, 4, 5, and 6 and in my experience (2) as well - I'm currently in a party with a bloodrager with Quick Reflexes and a paladin with Cleave and the paladin rarely gets to use cleave, while my bloodrager often uses 1 of 2 AoO in a turn. (3) is in favour of Mighty Cleaving, but I believe in total my reading of Fortuitous makes it already better than Mighty Cleaving, a +1 ability.
In fact, in some situations my reading of Fortuitous is better than Speed, a +3 ability! Speed doesn't stack with Haste, so if you have someone who can cast Haste as a party buff (or a cheaper item) Speed is useless to you. Speed also only works with a Full-Attack, while one common tactic for AoO builds is to make AoO instead of full attacking. For example, the reach cleric wants to cast spells, so they use AoO instead of spending their standard or full action to attack.
AoO are circumstantial benefits, and for a build that plans to make AoO, increasing the number of circumstances in which you will get AoO is very useful. This is why reach weapon users often take the Pushing Assault feat.
If you remove limitations (1) and (2) it becomes a really good ability and probably worth at least +2. Note how the main benefit of Holy (+2) over Bane (+1) is that the former applies in more situations than the latter.
|
|
The word 'grant' is used very specifically in Pathfinder. If you browse through the magic item list, spells, and other enhancements, you'll find almost as a uniform rule that the word 'grant' is used to give the subject some specific benefit, something that they otherwise would not have.
Why is granting the ability to make an iterative AoO against a single provocation not sufficient?
If the extra AoO were not free, the words would say 'this uses up one of your AoOs', or 'use may use an AoO to take an extra attack ... '
Would you require that wording to be added to Snake Fang, or Crane Riposte?
I know this is an old thread, sorry for the necro.
I am looking at getting this enchantment for my animal companion, and was hoping we could get an official answer on if the AOO granted by the enchantment requires combat expertise, and uses up one of your limited AoOs, or if it grants an extra one to that maximum a turn.
If you haven't looked into this, please look and faq the original post. :)