|
So I recently have reconsidered my position on this issue and no longer think it provokes. The reason people assert that it does provoke is quite logical and comes form this:
"They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent."
However, just before that section is this part under movement
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.
Now this implies that Small creature provoke from movement, specifically moving into and through a creature's square, which is similar to the section on creatures of differing sizes moving through squares also provoking. In essence its the movement that provokes and as stated in this preceeding the part on Very Small Creatures
A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).
So the only thing that changes from one section to the next is the fact that Very Small creatures can,and in some cases have to, move into an opponents square. Otherwise, all the rules in the section are consistent.
Now in just the next section we had the original supporting quote from above. Now is this a new rule or just restating the previous one? If different rules then do you provoke once for each rule, once for moving into a square, once for leaving a threatened area and once for entering an occupied square? Or is it more likely that the rule stated in both sections is the same, and given that it is covered under movement it can be prevented like all types of movement based AoOs.
Looks pretty open and shut to me. Taking a 5 foot step? You don't provoke. It doesn't say you don't provoke for leaving threatened squares, it says you don't provoke period.Does a tiny creature using a 5 foot step to enter an opponents space provoke an attack of opportunity when it does so?
Take 5-Foot Step
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movements. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity.
Looks pretty open and shut to me too. You can't 5' step into an enemy occupied square. You can only perform a 5' step when you don't perform other movements in the round. While there are rules for tiny creatures to move into occupied squares, there is nothing that overrides the fact that they cannot end the turn within that square unless that opponent is helpless. As it must be expected that the character will be moving at the end of their turn to leave the occupied square, they can't 5' step into it.
Looks pretty RAW to me, but I hit FAQ too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if "stepping into an enemy's square" falls into the same category as "can't 5 foot step into difficult terrain" or "can't 5 foot step while prone". There are already certain conditions under which you can't take a 5 foot step, and it would be very easy to rule that "into an occupied square" is one of them.
|
|
@Gwen I would argue that it is not considered hindering or difficult terrain as the rules for Acrobatics passing through the target's square do not increase the amount of distance you travel, the only distance related issue that comes up is the penalty to Acrobatics for moving more than half speed during the tumbling maneuver.
I don't know where people are getting the idea that a tiny (or smaller creature) cannot 5' step into an occupied square.
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.
The rule clearly states that you can move into an occupied square. Unless there is a rule that states you cannot make a 5' step into an occupied square or that moving into an occupied square costs extra movement then you can do so.
Regarding the 3 size difference rule, it doesn't apply to tiny creatures since it is a general rule for all creatures and the rule for tiny creatures supersedes it.
As for the AoO, I am of the opinion that the text regarding AoO for moving into an occupied square is superfluous and should not exist. Whether a 5' step allows you to avoid the AoO for entering an occupied space is unclear but I lean towards "yes".
While there are rules for tiny creatures to move into occupied squares, there is nothing that overrides the fact that they cannot end the turn within that square unless that opponent is helpless.
Wait...
You say that tiny creatures cannot end their turns in a non-helpless enemy's space?
If that's true, then how does a cat ever, ever, EVER catch a mouse? It MUST enter the opponent's space to attack (0' reach) and if it cannot end its turn there, then it must leave its opponent's space before it ends its turn. Does every cat have Spring Attack (which is curiously missing from their stat blocks)?
How do Stirges attack? Flyby Attacks? No, they enter an enemy's space and stay there while they grapple and stab and suck and bloat.
Is every tiny (or smaller) creature required to only attack sleeping prey?
The very rule we're talking about answers the question:
Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee.
There is literally no way they can enter an opponent's square to attack in melee AND not end their turn in that opponent's square without altering all of their stat blocks (and many of their Tactics entries) to include something like Spring Attack or some other move-attack-move trick).
Unless we give them all tiny longspears...
For those who are still conflicted, let me put it this way.
AOO's are normally drawn by moving out of a threatened square. A five foot step lets you avoid that AOO. If an AOO were drawn by moving into (aka entering) a threatened square, would a five foot step still avoid the AOO? Of course it would, so why is this a debate?
For those who are still conflicted, let me put it this way.
AOO's are normally drawn by moving out of a threatened square. A five foot step lets you avoid that AOO. If an AOO were drawn by moving into (aka entering) a threatened square, would a five foot step still avoid the AOO? Of course it would, so why is this a debate?
It is implicit that the AoO provocation avoided during a 5ft step is that for movement.
It is not as open and shut to me that the AoO provoked by entering an opponents space is only for movement, I read it as 'for invading their space' ('making it more difficult/giving yourself less room' to defend yourself)
No such thing is implicit, you are making an assumption and reading things that aren't there. RAW it is no. Anything more is a house rule.
No such thing is implicit, you are making an assumption and reading things that aren't there. RAW it is no. Anything more is a house rule.For those who are still conflicted, let me put it this way.
AOO's are normally drawn by moving out of a threatened square. A five foot step lets you avoid that AOO. If an AOO were drawn by moving into (aka entering) a threatened square, would a five foot step still avoid the AOO? Of course it would, so why is this a debate?
It is implicit that the AoO provocation avoided during a 5ft step is that for movement.
It is not as open and shut to me that the AoO provoked by entering an opponents space is only for movement, I read it as 'for invading their space' ('making it more difficult/giving yourself less room' to defend yourself)
Not quite a houserule yet. You provoke from movement for leaving a threatened square. That is distinct from entering a square to attack. Saying they are exactly the same thing is just as much an assumption and - by your definition - a houserule.
If it was just a case of moving into a square I might be on board with you, but it is explicitly moving into a square to attack, it goes beyond simply moving, and you can't just ignore the end of that sentence.
No such thing is implicit, you are making an assumption and reading things that aren't there. RAW it is no. Anything more is a house rule.For those who are still conflicted, let me put it this way.
AOO's are normally drawn by moving out of a threatened square. A five foot step lets you avoid that AOO. If an AOO were drawn by moving into (aka entering) a threatened square, would a five foot step still avoid the AOO? Of course it would, so why is this a debate?
It is implicit that the AoO provocation avoided during a 5ft step is that for movement.
It is not as open and shut to me that the AoO provoked by entering an opponents space is only for movement, I read it as 'for invading their space' ('making it more difficult/giving yourself less room' to defend yourself)
Not quite a houserule yet. You provoke from movement for leaving a threatened square. That is distinct from entering a square to attack. Saying they are exactly the same thing is just as much an assumption and - by your definition - a houserule.
If it was just a case of moving into a square I might be on board with you, but it is explicitly moving into a square to attack, it goes beyond simply moving, and you can't just ignore the end of that sentence.
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning moving. The five foot step rules do not state you don't provoke AOO's from moving, they say five foot steps don't provoke. Period. That's what the house rule is, you are inserting the moving language into the five foot step rule.
Leaving a threatened square and entering an occupied square are the same insofar as they are both things that provoke, and that is as far as it needs to go in terms of similarity. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
Also the bit about attacking is not relevant here, as you by no means have to attack after the step and whether or not you do is irrelevant to this discussion.
Do you think you provoke once or twice if you move 10ft and enter someone's square?
If the answer is twice it has to be two separate things that both provoke separately even though they can be done using the same move action.
If the answer is once, then it can be only because provoking from moving from a threatened square is the same as provoking for entering an occupied square.
The way I understand things, that second is impossible because entering a occupied square is not the same as leaving a threatened square. Thus it must be the first way.
I think once. Yes, they seem to be two separate things (although I'm not entirely convinced that the AoO text on entering an opponent's space was not just a reminder of the normal AoO rule for leaving the adjacent space he threatened).
However, even IF they are two separate things, they happen in the same exact instant of time.
The border between spaces is an infinitely thin imaginary line. Mathematics teaches us that a line exists in one dimension, having length but no height or width.
So the INSTANT that leaving the adjacent space provokes is the same INSTANT that entering the occupied space provokes. While that does, by RAW, provoke two attacks of opportunity, it literally means the defender must make two simultaneous swings at the guy entering his space at exactly the same INSTANT of time.
I don't think that's really possible, even if he has two weapons. (even if we want to argue that a creature with two claws, or a guy with TWF, could possibly do it, the rule isn't that specific and seems to let EVERYBODY, even a guy with one greatsword, make two simultaneous instant attacks).
That apparent impossibility makes me lean toward accepting that the entering occupied space text is just a reminder of the normal AoO rules.
That's my take on the RAI. Who knows, maybe the devs really wanted AoOs to be faster than the speed of light. But I think they didn't.
Imagine how much simpler the game would be without AoO.
Simple.
<friendly jibe>
What sort of player would such a game be ideal for?
</friendly jibe>
Granted that was a joke, but I would argue that even with gutted AoO, the game would be far from simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted that was a joke, but I would argue that even with gutted AoO, the game would be far from simple.
Nah, it kinda tips the balance even more in favor of attackers win, defenders lose. Then we would just have people starting threads about how "Defenders can't have nice things!"
Granted that was a joke, but I would argue that even with gutted AoO, the game would be far from simple.Nah, it kinda tips the balance even more in favor of attackers win, defenders lose. Then we would just have people starting threads about how "Defenders can't have nice things!"
That could easily be fixed by buffing hp and healing. But I believe attackers win is a conscious choice to keep combats from going on too long.
Not even close. The only reason a 5ft step is listed under miscellaneous is that it can always be taken if you don't use your other available actions to move any distance. This does not stop a 5ft step from actually being movement. If this movement wasn't exempted from the AoO rules, it would provoke if you exited a threatened space, ergo, the provocation it prevents is that for movement.No such thing is implicit, you are making an assumption and reading things that aren't there. RAW it is no. Anything more is a house rule.For those who are still conflicted, let me put it this way.
AOO's are normally drawn by moving out of a threatened square. A five foot step lets you avoid that AOO. If an AOO were drawn by moving into (aka entering) a threatened square, would a five foot step still avoid the AOO? Of course it would, so why is this a debate?
It is implicit that the AoO provocation avoided during a 5ft step is that for movement.
It is not as open and shut to me that the AoO provoked by entering an opponents space is only for movement, I read it as 'for invading their space' ('making it more difficult/giving yourself less room' to defend yourself)
No one is saying five foot steps aren't movement. But just because the most common way a five foot step avoids AOO's is from moving out of threatened sqaures does not logically imply that that is the only way it can avoid AOO's. For example, you can avoid AOO's from entering an opponents sqaure. It does not say five foot steps only avoid AOO's under certain circumstances. That text simply does not exist. You are assuming that the most common condition must be the only one. That does not logically follow in any way, shape, or form.
For example, deflection bonuses to AC can be used against touch attacks. Ergo, the only protection it provides is against touch attacks. See how that doesn't make any sense?
By your logic, if the AOO rules said "exiting a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity" a five foot step would not avoid it, because the word movement is not used. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?
Even were you correct in saying that five foot step AOO avoidance only applies to movement (and you're not), you'd still be wrong, because entering encompasses moving into. Moving into is entering. However, entering is not necessarily moving into. For example, teleporting into is entering that is not moving into. It's like saying all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats. Your argument is saying, however, that since all mammals are not cats, no cats are mammals.
Stop trying to read what you think the rules say, and just read what they say.
The only reasonable reading of the rule is that a 5ft step does not provoke for taking a 5ft step.
If entering an opponent's space provokes for a reason other than movement (ie. the 5ft step), it should not negate that AoO.
Taking a five foot step into an opponents sqaure is still taking a five foot step, isn't it? Even if by some convoluted logic the five foot step doesn't qualify as movement, five foot steps never provoke unless a rule comes along to supercede the five foot step rule. Anything else? A house rule.
Entering into a square provokes because entering into a square provokes. That's what the rule is, so that's what happens. It's not like you enter into the square, they get mad because you stepped onto their toe, and they hit you. It's just condition:result. Reading more into it is making up rules.
Also, see my post above for why movement into a square is in fact entering into it. (I can't believe that was a sentence I had to write. Are people really arguing moving into a square does not qualify as entering it? Like, seriously? They're somehow seperate? Really?)
Listen, even though the 5' step may not provoke, that doesn't give it carte blanche to avoid every single effect and ramification that might result from that step.
For example, let's presume a creature has the ability to take AoOs on creatures that fall past it.
(this is actually another contested topic - just assume they can take such AoOs here)Someone 5' steps off a cliff, falling past said creature. Does that person trigger the AoO?
I hope it is clear that YES, the AoO for falling past our theoretical creature does happen despite a 5' step initiating the whole ordeal.
The 5' step itself may not provoke, but it can still result in AoOs happening that are tied to triggers not directly dependent on the movement of that step.
The difference being that there is additional movement taking place besides the 5 foot step.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The only reasonable reading of the rule is that a 5ft step does not provoke for taking a 5ft step.
If entering an opponent's space provokes for a reason other than movement (ie. the 5ft step), it should not negate that AoO.
The only reasonable reading you can see. Others see it very reasonable that it doesn't provoke for entering.
Listen, even though the 5' step may not provoke, that doesn't give it carte blanche to avoid every single effect and ramification that might result from that step.
For example, let's presume a creature has the ability to take AoOs on creatures that fall past it.
(this is actually another contested topic - just assume they can take such AoOs here)Someone 5' steps off a cliff, falling past said creature. Does that person trigger the AoO?
I hope it is clear that YES, the AoO for falling past our theoretical creature does happen despite a 5' step initiating the whole ordeal.
The 5' step itself may not provoke, but it can still result in AoOs happening that are tied to triggers not directly dependent on the movement of that step.
The fall happens after the step. Entering the square is the step. Very poor example.
It's not the best example, but it still applies.
You take a 5' step. Something else triggers that provokes an AoO.
So:
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), fall (provokes)
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), enter a creature's square (provokes)It doesn't matter whether the auxiliary events are simultaneous or sequential. The key is that something additional to the 5' step is happening, and that additional thing can still provoke even if the 5' step itself doesn't.
The difference is that 5-foot step and entering a creature's space are both movement action, so if combined they should be treated as one in the same action. Falling is not movement, so it would have to be separate from the 5-foot step.
It's not the best example, but it still applies.
You take a 5' step. Something else triggers that provokes an AoO.
So:
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), fall (provokes)
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), enter a creature's square (provokes)It doesn't matter whether the auxiliary events are simultaneous or sequential. The key is that something additional to the 5' step is happening, and that additional thing can still provoke even if the 5' step itself doesn't.
They're not simultaneous, they are the same thing. Moving into a square is entering a square. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?
Would you argue:
You take a five foot step (doesn't provoke) to leave a threatened square (provokes).
No, that's absurd, as leaving a threatened square is the five foot step. Entering an opponents square likewise is the five foot step.
It's not the best example, but it still applies.
You take a 5' step. Something else triggers that provokes an AoO.
So:
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), fall (provokes)
You take a 5' step (doesn't provoke), enter a creature's square (provokes)It doesn't matter whether the auxiliary events are simultaneous or sequential. The key is that something additional to the 5' step is happening, and that additional thing can still provoke even if the 5' step itself doesn't.
They're not simultaneous, they are the same thing. Moving into a square is entering a square. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?
Would you argue:
You take a five foot step (doesn't provoke) to leave a threatened square (provokes).
No, that's absurd, as leaving a threatened square is the five foot step. Entering an opponents square likewise is the five foot step.
They are -triggered- by the same action, but there are two -different- AoO which are being triggered.
The AoO from movement is negated by the rules for 5' steps.
The AoO from invading an enemy's square is not.
This is because a 5' step allows you to "move 5 feet", and movement normally provokes.
The second AoO is triggered off of entering an opponent's square, and really doesn't care about the method you use to get there.(btw, just so you know, I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here since I'd like to see this clarified)
Once again, the five foot step rule blankly states it does not trigger, period, not that it does not trigger in certain circumstances. The space where the rule comes up most often is irrelevant. Being used to it only mattering for threatened squares doesn't change the text on the page. If they are triggered by the same action, and that action specifies (specific overcomes general, remember?) that it never provokes, it doesn't provoke.
Once again, the AOO is not from some sort of nebulous "invasion", it's from entering the square.
Once again, five foot stepping into a square is indeed entering it. The trigger doesn't care about the method, that is true, but the method cares about itself.
This doesn't need clarification. It's probably the most black and white rules debate I've ever seen occur on these forums. The only confusion that arises is people trying to read intent in rules, trying to figure out why entering a square provokes as if that matters. Who cares? Entering normally provokes, five foot stepping into is entering, five foot stepping never provokes and its specific rule overwrites the general rule. End of story.
Attacks of opportunity have "causes" or "triggers", if you will. Not game terms, but each time an AoO is provoked, there's a reason why.
Casting a spell is one of those causes. Moving is another. Drinking a potion is yet another.
I agree that a 5-ft step doesn't provoke, because it's not one of the causes that does. Unfortunately, entering a enemy's square is one of those that does.
Is there room for a FAQ? Absolutely, because it can successfully be argued that the method may matter as to how someone enters an enemy's square. I mean, what if a Tiny wizard uses dimension door to enter an enemy's square? What if you use it from 400 feet away? Just not clear.
As a DM, I currently would rule that entering an occupied square is a cause/trigger/reason that provokes, but I'd also grant that it's all an edge condition. Grunt.
What about if you had an ability to drink a potion as a swift action? Swifts don't provoke (I think) but drinking does. Ugh.
Anyone saying this is absolutely black or white is just being stubborn.
The mouser archetype implies the AoO is from movement and not separate from entering the square. But that's in the ACG, so its validity is questionable.
This is clearly not black and white. Five foot movements do not provoke. Entering an opponent's space does provoke. Entering an opponent's space with a five foot step is an unclear situation as a unique circumstance. Fervently insisting that moving into an opponent's square is a separate provocation for an AoO does not make you any less right or wrong. It's clear that this is unclear. Anyone who insists otherwise is just unwilling to listen to the other side. This is a definite FAQ candidate.
Five foot steps do not provoke. Moving out of a threatened square does provoke. Clearly there's a FAQ candidate there, as these two rules are in opposition.
Whether or not the provocation is separate is pretty much irrelevant, as it would not provoke regardless, as the method is still the five foot step. I insist on my position because it is correct, and I have yet to see anyone actually bring up any sort of rules argument against it. I understand your position, I just believe it to be wrong on a fundamental level. Most of the arguments I've seen would logically result in provoking by leaving a threatened square with a five foot step. These are obviously wrong. The best argument I've seen amounts to asking:
"What if a five foot step's clause about it never provoking only applies to moving out of threatened squares?"
The only reason people are asking that question is they are used to five foot steps being used only in a certain way. But the rules are simply not that restrictive. There is no RAW argument for this line of thinking.
Attacks of opportunity have "causes" or "triggers", if you will. Not game terms, but each time an AoO is provoked, there's a reason why.
Casting a spell is one of those causes. Moving is another. Drinking a potion is yet another.
I agree that a 5-ft step doesn't provoke, because it's not one of the causes that does. Unfortunately, entering a enemy's square is one of those that does.
This interpretation cannot be correct. Here's why:
Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.
That's from the table you're referencing. It clearly states that moving out of a threatened square is its own separate trigger. If your line of reasoning were correct, then the miscellaneous action "five foot step" would not, as you say, be a trigger. But the table only indicates whether the action itself provokes, right? So the trigger would be the square leaving, which by your line of reasoning is not the action itself, and thus you would provoke if you left a threatened square. Remember, the five foot step rules have no language that is specific to moving out of a threatened square.
This is seen most easily in the charge entry on the table. The charge action does not provoke. But the movement that results from a charge can. So the five foot step action does not provoke, but the movement from a five foot step can?
But you don't provoke for leaving a threatened square, thus the language of the method by which you leave must be important. And if the language of the method by which you trigger is important in this case, it must logically follow that it is important in all cases. Once again please remember, the five foot step rules have no language that is specific to moving out of a threatened square.
And that's really what every argument for an AOO being triggered boils down to. If you are correct, then logically five foot steps cannot avoid AOO's for leaving threatened squares. But since they can, you cannot be correct.
Kazaan,
I don't see how thats not a clear case of specific trumping general. Or how you distinguish between the action and the movement when they're the exact same thing in a 5 foot step.
If anything, pin down is proof you have to have an exception for a 5 foot step to provoke. Since the rules for entering a square never mention 5 foot steps, you can infer that the 5 foot step protection still stands.
You can't 5 foot step in difficult terrain, so it would be normal movement.
You can't 5 foot step in difficult terrain, so it would be normal movement.
I think that's the point. Are "leaving a square threatened by an opponent" and "entering and opponent's square" two separate triggers, like "casting a spell" and "making a ranged attack" are two separate triggers when you cast acid splash?
Still missing the point.
The clause about 5' steps not provoking is concerning the movement provided by the 5' step (which would otherwise provoke).
The AoO for entering an opponent's square has nothing to do with 5' steps. This AoO is completely separate from the means by which you use to get there.
I'd really love to see the rule that says the clause about five foot steps provoking applies only to a specific instance. Making up rules in a rules discussion is very unproductive.
You are correct, the movement would otherwise provoke.
You are correct, the clause prevents that.
But you are incorrect, in that that is not the only thing it prevents. You may argue it is written too broadly. That's your business. But the language is what it is. It doesn't change because it doesn't fit your argument.
Regardless, I also showed how the rule would still not provoke even if it only prevented AOO's because of movement. Your counter argument amounts to "I'm just going to repeat the point you addressed and say you don't get it". You have quoted no rules, you have given no examples. You have brought forth no new arguments. You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced.