I find it a bit odd that you can't see the inconsistencies in your scenario.
The creature _isn't_ in the space, at least not yet. Remember, the AoO occurs before the triggering action, so you're still in the exact same square for either AoO. In fact, you haven't yet moved out of the threatened square, or into the creature's square at all.
And yet, avoiding the 'exact same AoO' in the exact same position of the exact same square has a different DC.
I'm not assuming anything, the only thing I'm declaring with certainty is that anyone, like you, who declares that they know the answer with certainty is fooling himself.
Yes, yes, ad hominim attacks, we've been down this road before, and your post was deleted for rudeness. Would you really like to do it again? It's tiresome and pointless.
Acrobatics does not care where the AOO occurs, it only cars what conditions occur during the move. That's why moving over half speed still increases acrobatics checks by 10 even when the AOO occurs in the first square of movement.
The same AOO can occur under different conditions. These conditions change the acrobatics DC. These conditions do not affect five foot steps unless otherwise stated. It is not otherwise stated. It's pretty simple, really.
The rules for five foot steps are not the rules for acrobatics, and one does not influence the other. That is the assumption you're making. You're also making an assumption about the reasoning for why the dc increases. Your assumptions are wrong. Your point is wrong.
Acrobatics does not care where the AOO occurs, it only cars what conditions occur during the move. That's why moving over half speed still increases acrobatics checks by 10 even when the AOO occurs in the first square of movement.
The same AOO can occur under different conditions. These conditions change the acrobatics DC. These conditions do not affect five foot steps unless otherwise stated. It is not otherwise stated. It's pretty simple, really.
What do you mean 'conditions during the move'? The movement has not yet occurred because the AoO takes place before the move action.
Again, I'm making no assumptions. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your assumptions. Not quite sure why this is so difficult to grasp.
Also, I would double check the definition of ad hominim (sic) as well as the spelling because you're not using it correctly.
Ozy, you already had a post removed for personal attacks. You stated then that you weren't doing anything wrong just before your post was removed. You state the same thing now, before being so petty as to attack a typo.
In all seriousness, you seem to take discussions on rules personally. This is unhealthy and will lead only to aggravation. Stick to discussion of the relevant text. Stop attacking others because they disagree with you. It's petty and there's no need for it.
You are in fact making assumptions. I have explained why, but you do not refute these reasons, only restate you are not making assumptions.
Acrobatics DC's are not concerned only with where the AOO occurs, one need only read the text on movement speed to see why. Regardless, acrobatics rules are acrobatics rules, and are irrelevant to this discussion. You point is wrong.
In all seriousness, when you bring up the words 'ad hominem' in a misdirected attempt to deflect an argument, it is personally reasonable to respond as I did. In fact, both that post, and the one I'm responding to are much better examples of ad hominem.
I'm fully aware of the details of Acrobatics DCs, in fact that's the reason I brought them up. They are proof definitive that AoOs can't possibly be completely initiated and resolved before the triggering action, disconnected from the actual action itself.
It's an example of incoherence in the rules that utterly undermines anyone who is 'certain' about how the rules must be applied in cases such as the one under discussion.
The argument that the AoO from entering an occupied square is identical to the AoO one incurs from leaving a threatened square is exactly undermined by these differences in Acrobatics DCs.
And one final thing, where in the rules does it state that it is even possible to take a 5' step into an occupied square? Obstacles in squares incur double movement penalties, and are typically invalid for 5' step movement.
The very fact that you feel attacked is worrisome. I made no attempt to deflect an argument, in fact I responded to and refuted your points. I simply pointed out your lack of courtesy. It has been a problem in this thread repeatedly. I'm sorry you feel offended that I disagree with you, but the fact is every point you have ever raised in this thread has been wrong on a fundamental level.
AOO's are resolved before the triggering action. This is in the FAQ. This has been shown and quoted multiple times. It has been ignored multiple times. It is not an item up for debate. The rule is in a FAQ, it is definitively settled. Just because it counters your argument does not mean it can be ignored.
The acrobatics rules do make sense, but not with the assumptions you're making about them. I'd go into it, but that's a discussion for another thread. Suffice it to say, however, that the rules for acrobatics and the rules for five foot steps are different. If you think acrobatics have a rules inconsistency, please start another thread. Your idea, however, that a different DC means a different fundamental type of AOO does not logically follow whatsoever. Your point is wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tribune, I'd appreciate if you would stop asking others to simply "stop debating" and stop saying "your point is wrong", specially in a situation where the point is undetermined by the rules. Even if, in the future, you happen to be right, there's no need to be a @#%* while trying to stop others from proving otherwise, simply by smashing the "You're wrong" button.
Please, try to contribute with someting to help prove your point, instead of just saying "the rules are clear". We're not computers, computers don't question the rules of the programs that runs them, we do. People have always questioned how to do things outside the scope of the written rules. I thought what we were trying to do here is determined if the AoO for moving into an occupied square is independent or if it's the same one for moving out of a threatened square, determined that by using other indirect rules (like acrobatics, but that wasn't enough to determine it)
Even if there was't any quote in the acrobatic rules to solve this issue, as they say "where there's smoke, there's fire". Ozzy did have a point in thinking that moving through could be related to moving into, he was half way there. In the end, the acrobatics rules serve as an indication as to what moving into might be, but nothing more. Still, and indication is better than nothing.
AOO's are resolved before the triggering action. This is in the FAQ. This has been shown and quoted multiple times. It has been ignored multiple times. It is not an item up for debate. The rule is in a FAQ, it is definitively settled. Just because it counters your argument does not mean it can be ignored.
Not quite. The rules tell us that is how it works, yet it doesn't actually work that way. What they really mean is the AoO happens before the triggering event - or in other words a triggering action where action is not the game defined term for action - it just so happens that in most cases this also coincides with an actual game defined action. But let me illustrate with a couple of examples.
Example 1: I am 10' away from you, you have a melee weapon in hand that does not have reach. I run past you, ending up 10' on the other side of you. Does the AoO go off before my triggering action? No, it can't, I'm out of your reach at that point in time. It goes off when I leave a threatened square - which is in the middle of my actual action.
Example 2: I have BAB +6. I make a full attack against you. First I smack you with my sword, then I try to disarm you (without the improved disarm feat). Does your AoO go off before the triggering action (e.g, before my full attack even starts)? No it goes off during the triggering event, making a combat maneuver I did not have the improved feat for.
Not quite. The rules tell us that is how it works, yet it doesn't actually work that way.
Trying to say that what the rules say is not what the rules say is a tall order. This... falls very very short of that standard.
Example 1: I am 10' away from you, you have a melee weapon in hand that does not have reach. I run past you, ending up 10' on the other side of you.
No.
What happens is you attempt to move past him. You move individually from one square to another.
Once you enter his threatened square and then ATTEMPT to leave it, you provoke an AoO. That AoO may stop your intended action any numbers of ways: including being tripped or even decapitated.
Does the AoO go off before my triggering action? No, it can't, I'm out of your reach at that point in time. It goes off when I leave a threatened square - which is in the middle of my actual action.
What you've done is grouped a series of events together and labeled them collectively as the triggering action when that is not how the game works. The triggering action is you leaving a square, not the composite action of "running past him". A thing is not the same as all of its parts.
The rules still say what the rules still say.
Does the AoO go off before my triggering action? No, it can't, I'm out of your reach at that point in time. It goes off when I leave a threatened square - which is in the middle of my actual action.What you've done is grouped a series of events together and labeled them collectively as the triggering action when that is not how the game works. The triggering action is you leaving a square, not the composite action of "running past him". A thing is not the same as all of its parts.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I was pointing out :). That the triggering action wasn't the beginning of my movement. The triggering action was an 'event' during my move 'action'. The event was me leaving a threatened square. The AoO goes off before that event, and not before my move 'action'.
That is, AoO's are not triggered from game defined actions (move/standard) but from events or actions (not game defined) that occur as part of those actions (game defined actions).
So it is important to understand what context the word action is being used in when talking about AoO's. Hence, while the rules tell us that AoO's go off before the triggering action, yet Triune (I believe) was applying the game defined term for action as the context. (I should have been more clear by what I meant when I said the rules don't actually work that way).
That is, AoO's are not triggered from game defined actions (move/standard) but from events or actions (not game defined) that occur as part of those actions (game defined actions)
So what you're doing is giving triune a bad definition for triggering action, that he didn't use, and then using that bad definition to say that he's wrong....? I can't get anything else out of your posts.
He's saying that Action ≠ Event. Example:
Action: Fire an Arrow (Ranged Attack)
AoO: Happens before the Arrow finishes beeing fired Event.
Outcome #1: The AoO doesn't kill the subject and the "Fire an Arrow" event happens.
Outcome #2: The AoO kills the subject and the "Fire an Arrow" event never happes (well, it did start to happen, but wasn't concluded).
I don't like saying tha AoO happen before their triggering Actions, or Events, it makes it sounds like everybody is a Jedi and uses the force interrupt attacks that haven't even happen. It sounds like a Time Paradox, how can you take an action to stop something if the action you want to stop hasn't even began to happen yet?
To me, the key word is interrupt, which indicates the AoO happen generally during the Action or Event. I think some Dev wrote something like "AoO happen after the actions that triggered them began to happen, but before they are resolved".
Anyway, the important thing is that, in the initiative order, we resolve the AoO before we resolve the Actions that triggered them, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Or just, you know, have the attempt be what triggers the action, rather than having things happen in 0 time.
Standing up: Garfield attempts to stand from prone= Garfield rolls over, uses arms to push to kneeling position, leans back and extends legs to stand. Standing up is a process, it occurs over 3 seconds. The AoO is drawn in second 1.
I'm just surprised this hasn't gotten FAQed yet.
Gencon. Blogs. Otherstuff.
I talked to Mark at Gencon. He alluded to them being a bit scared to FAQ stuff since the backlash from the ACG errata. ...can't say I blame either side for that. ;)
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during or after a full-round action." If you choose to take your 5-foot step during the casting of a full round spell or during a full attack to move close to a barbarian with "Come and Get me", would that mean neither the casting of the spell nor any attacks during the full attack would provoke any AoO, since it's all one "action" (full round action + 5-foot step)?
Probably not, it should provoke AoO anyway, but this is the only other example I can think of where a 5-foot step could provoke an AoO unrelated to movement.
I talked to Mark at Gencon. He alluded to them being a bit scared to FAQ stuff since the backlash from the ACG errata. ...can't say I blame either side for that. ;)
I wish I could tell him to disregard the hate.
Personally I think all of the changes that were made were for the better, and it's mostly just people who are upset because their favorite (overpowered) toys got broken.
|
I talked to Mark at Gencon. He alluded to them being a bit scared to FAQ stuff since the backlash from the ACG errata. ...can't say I blame either side for that. ;)
Well, if we divide the number of angry posts by the number of rule points clarified/modified in the erratas, I would guess that it ends up pretty low. Lower than the usual number of angry posts for a single FAQ I think.
And now I am left wondering what are the FAQs with the highest number of angry posts per rule point clarified ;-)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
upset because their favorite (overpowered) toys got broken.
I actually can't think of any other reason for being upset about an errata.
The ACG errata was a big one, I've done 3 baskets of cookies and such for smaller errata in the past (like Sound Striker and the stacking archetype ones). We should all get together and do a big basket of something for the ACG errata. To show there are more that appreciate than don't? Anyone want to join me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Claxon: I told him for us. I said that we really appreciate the FAQ attention that has happened recently despite the sad loss of SKR. I told him that for the vast majority of the FAQs I am just relieved to have a ruling (like the Scorpion Whip, which he recognized me from among other things). For others I'm not thrilled when they are changed rather than clarified like Slashing Grace, Spirit's Gift, etc. But I am rarely straight up angry at the development and FAQ staff. I think most are like me.
Hopefully they know that the majority of us appreciate the rulings even if we don't like every bit of them. If we have complaints it is for the general improvement of the game and rarely out of self interest.
I wish I had more time to talk to him but he approached me in the middle of a game.
@The black raven: I agree. I think it is likely the issue of complaints are heard louder than praise.
James Risner: Well, I dunno, James. I can understand people getting upset about things that are straight up changed rather than clarified. Particularly in in PFS play.
My son, for instance, had a hunter that took the Spirit's Gift feat. That feat was not just clarified but rather changed completely. It was changed into something that was not desirable for him at all. He has now swapped out the feat.
Likewise he has another character in a home game that I run that took Slashing Grace. That feat was also changed. He had a Two Weapon Fighting character and that feat is no longer compatible. In fact, there is nothing that fills the role of that feat any longer. For my home game the easy solution is to ignore the errata and go with the rules as they were originally presented. But if this were a PFS character... well, what options would he have?
I can understand someone being upset by those changes.
I can also understand the Devs being upset by people being upset at their clarifications.
That being said... I would get in on that basket. How is this being arranged? Shall we start a new thread?
Perhaps a lesson learned for both the Devs and us is the following:
Devs - Maybe not straight up just change things completely when issuing a FAQ/Errata. That tends to upset people. Perhaps smaller adjustments would be better and if the smaller adjustments still don't work then adjust further.
Us: Don't take changes personally. It isn't like the Devs are trying to ruin our character concepts. (I hope?)
I was thinking of setting up a democratic FAQ thread for all the most popular unresolved questions.
The thread would be set up as follows:
Post 1:
"Does a tiny creature using a 5 foot step to enter an opponent’s space provoke an attack of opportunity when it does so?"
"Yes. Entering an opponent's space always provokes an AoO."
Post 2:
"Does a tiny creature using a 5 foot step to enter an opponent’s space provoke an attack of opportunity when it does so?"
"No. A 5 foot step never provokes an AoO. Similarly, an acrobatics check at the standard DC prevents this AoO."
Post 3:
"Does a tiny creature using a 5 foot step to enter an opponent’s space provoke an attack of opportunity when it does so?"
"No. The rule about AoOs for entering an opponent's space was intended to refer to the normal AoO for leaving a threatened space. There is no extra AoO."
Then people can favorite the interpretation they prefer (whether for reasons of consistency with RAW, realism, or game balance).
That way, Paizo can at least know in advance if a ruling will be controversial, and indecisive GMs can opt for the most popular answer as a default position.
I'm not sure if that would help; maybe it would backfire in some way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand someone being upset by those changes.
I can also understand the Devs being upset by people being upset at their clarifications.
I can understand being upset, you're toy got taken away. Even if it was the sort of toy that was unfair to others and didn't fit in with the overall aesthetic that was wanted (with the realization of the problem coming after the fact).
But, that doesn't give them the right for such vehemence as was espoused on the board.
It okay to be upset, but people took it to an unnecessary level and acted as though there was personal malice in the changes or clarifications that were made to some abilities.
Overall, it was appalling to me the way many people behaved in reaction the errata.
We should all get together and do a big basket of something for the ACG errata. To show there are more that appreciate than don't? Anyone want to join me?
I wouldn't mind contributing, though I'm not sure how we would organize such. I think most of us don't live anywhere near one another.
Claxon: I completely agree.
I'll make a new thread. It won't matter how far we are. We can pledge, and I'll send a basket valued at the total pledges to them. Then just paypal me your pledge.
I'm cool with that.
I talked to Mark at Gencon. He alluded to them being a bit scared to FAQ stuff since the backlash from the ACG errata. ...can't say I blame either side for that. ;)
Ahhh, I remember my first torch and pitchfork mob.....still have the scars.
Holy hijacked thread!
Holy hijacked thread!
Its not hijacked its taking the scenic route at gunpoint.
These things happen
It will reach its final destination eventually. Or not.
Back on the subject,
"You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed."
I've tried to think of an example where a 5-foot step would provoke an AoO, but it seems that's just no possible, because AoO don't just happen, they only happen in response to specific triggers within an oponent's melee reach (cast a spell, reload a crossbow, ranged attacks), and a 5-foot step simply isn't a trigger for any AoO, unless someone has a specific ability that allows otherwise.
What I mean is, "Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity" means the exact same thing as "Taking this 5-foot step doesn't provokes an attack of opportunity".
You know what else Never provoes an AoO? A melee attack, activating a magic item, channel energy, drawing a weapon, all of these actions don't provoke AoO, never have and never will, unless the oponent has an ability that specifically says otherwise.
So, yeah, basically, when they say "Never", all they really mean is "Doesn't".
So, if you can use a 5-foot step to move into an occupied square, that should provoke an AoO, because it specifically says so. (unless...)
In the end, a Tiny creature moving into a square of a Large creature is absolutely no different from a Medium creature moving close to a Gargantuan creature to attack. The only difference is the relative size of the surrounding trees.
I see 2 reasons as to why we have these special rules for Tiny or smaller creatures. First, the game was designed mostly for Medium creatures (players) fighting Medium or larger creatures, so, to make things simple, the basic space/distance unit is the one square you occupy. The second is that Medium creature's miniatures are already small. If we were to use even smaller miniatures for tiny and smaller creatures and had to divide the battle grid into even smaller squares for them, either we would end up with miniatues smaller than ants, or, if we were to enlarge Diminutive creatures's miniatures so we could manipulate them, we would end up with "miniatures" the size of a house for Large creatures.
The Battlegrid is already smaller than reality. It isn't compatible with creatures smaller than the miniatures we use (unless you like playing with grains of sand).
In order to make Tiny and Smaller creatures compatible with the size of the battlegrid we use, the rules allow them to occupy the same squares as other creatures, for simplicity. Otherwise, it would seem weird that they can attack from "so far away" beyond their reach, but in the end they behave just like any other smaller creature moving close to a larger creature to attack.
Intepreting the AoO for moving into as a regular AoO for leaving a threatened square is the only/best interpretation to make the rules work. Otherwise, a Tiny creature would provoke 3 AoO if it moved from 10ft way into an enemy occupied square and tryied to grapple it.
Kchaka, it's not only tiny creatures that can enter others' squares, as you've pointed out.
If a medium creature moves 10' into a gargantuan creature's square and tries to grapple it, 3 AoOs would be provoked. ("Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.")
So it should be no surprise that a tiny creature would also provoke 3 times for a similar maneuver.
Thats kind of begging the question here. We don't know if entering the square is a seperate thing from the movement or not.
I think, in PF, a Medium creature can't enter the square of a Gargantuan creature. A Gargantuan creature can move over/through and past a Medium creature, but can't stop over it (unless it has some special ability to crush them). A Medium creature can move adjacent to a Gargantuan creature and Grapple it, provoking 2 Aoo. Even Grappling, they'll occupy different squares. The only ones that can move in and actually stay inside another creature's square are Tiny and smaller creatures.
PFRD > Combat > Movement, Position, And Distance > Moving Through a 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.
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.
Btw, this was quoted from the movement section of the rules. Kinda implies it's just movement.
Questioning the "The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so." affirmative is the same as questioning if "Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures." also provokes an AoO different from one for leaving a threatened square.
Honestly, I think people are trying to read too much into this. It's like reading "If you get into water, you get wet." and then start questioning "What do they mean by wet? If it's a woman, does she get's horny and ..."
Even though it isn't 100% clear, personally I'm 99% sure "moving into" is just regular movement, so only 1 AoO should happen.
NOW, if a Tiny or smaller creater can make a 5-foot step to not provoke one, I'm not so sure, because a 5-foot step is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig stretch for a creature the size of an ant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, since it seems nobody wants to discuss this thing anymore, I'm gonna lay down all the questions about this I wish the Devs would answer:
#Q1. When a Tiny or smaller creature uses a move action to move into an enemy occupied square, does that provokes 2 AoO, one for leaving a threatened square and another for moving into and enemy occupied square, or are these 2 AoO the same one, the regular one provoked by leaving a threatened square?
#A1. I think these 2 are the same AoO, the regular one for leaving a threatened square, so using a move action to move into an enemy occupied square would provoke only 1 AoO, just like a human would provoke only 1 AoO by moving close enough to a Colossal Dragon to attack it.
#Q2. Can a Tiny or smaller creature use a 5-foot step to move into an enemy occupied square, and would that provoke an AoO?
#A2. Yes, I think you can use a 5-foot step to move into an enemy occupied square, and that would not provke an AoO, as usual.
#Q3. If a Tiny or smaller creature moves into an square occupied by another Tiny or smaller enemy creature with reach 0, will the invaded creature be able to AoO the invading creature even though it has reach 0, or will it only be eligible to the AoO if it's wielding a reach weapon? If the invaded creature can perform the AoO with reach 0, does the AoO happens after the invading creature has alredy moved inside the invaded creature square?
#A3. I think moving into the square of an enemy creature with reach 0 doesn't provoke an AoO, just like a human would not provoke an AoO from another human with the same reach.
(Btw, with the present rules, if a Cat moves into the square of a rat, the rat get's to make an AoO on the Cat, which doesn't make sense. The Cat should have a reach bigger than the rat, so it should be the rat the one provoking an AoO from the Cat when it tries to attack the Cat. So, Houserule: Creatures with the same reach don't provoke AoO from each other when they approach to attack on melee. Only creatures with bigger reach get to AoO other creature with smaller reach than it's own when they try to approach to attack it.)
#Q4. Is "moving into" an enemy occupied square a specific action or can it be done as just a part of regular movement?
#A4. It's not an specific action, it's just something that happens as a part of regular movement, with a 5-foot step, teleport or whatever.
#Q5. When a creature 3 sizes larger then it's enemy moves through the enemy's occupied square, does that also provokes 2 AoO or only 1, for leaving a threatened square?
#A5. I think moving through and enemy occupied square is just regular movement that very big or very little creatures may be able to make, and it should provoke just 1 AoO, as usual.
#Q6. Can a Tiny or smaller creature teleport into and enemy occupied square, and would that provoke an AoO?
#A6. Yes, I think so. For a Tiny creature to teleport into an enemy occupied square to stand close enough to the enemy to attack it would be the same as any other creature teleporting to an square adjacent to an enemy they want to attack. Teleporting into the occupied square should not provoke an AoO.
#Q7. Can you use Accrobatics to avoid the AoO for moving into an enemy occupied square? What if you move into with a 5-foot step, can you use Accrobatics then? What's the Accrobatics DC?
#A7. I think moving into an enemy occupied square is just like regular movement, so you can use Accrobatis to avoid the AoO. The DC is just the enemy's CMD, as usual. A 5-foot steps already avoids the AoO for leaving a threatened square, so there's no need to use Accrobatics with it.
#Q8. When a creature 3 sizes larger or smaller than the other moves through the enemy creature occupied square, can they use Accrobatics to avoid the AoO for moving through? What would be Accrobatics DC?
#A8. Creatures 3 sizes larger or smaller moving through other creature's squares are just using their regular movement and can use Accrobatics to avoid the AoO, as usual, I think. Since these creatures can move past the others with ease, the Accrobatics DC for them to move through could be just the other creature's CMD, not CMD +5.
Helpfull Article: Kobold Press: Size Matters (by Skip Williams)
Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) by Skip Williams
In the end, the main reason why the AoO for moving into is just a reminder of the AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square, and as such can be avoided by a 5-foot step, is that, otherwise, anybody fighing a Tiny or smaller creature would be able to just take a 5-foot step to get out of it's reach, which would force the Tiny creature to take another 5-foot step into the square it moved to, and provoke another AoO, every round. It's unbalanced, unfair and doesn't make sense.
Can a tiny creature or a creature with 3+ size difference charge through/ be charged through as though it weren't there?
What I mean is, "Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity" means the exact same thing as "Taking this 5-foot step doesn't provokes an attack of opportunity".
You know what else Never provoes an AoO? A melee attack, activating a magic item, channel energy, drawing a weapon, all of these actions don't provoke AoO, never have and never will, unless the oponent has an ability that specifically says otherwise.
So, yeah, basically, when they say "Never", all they really mean is "Doesn't".
Walking ten feet doesn't provoke an AoO.
Taking a 5-foot step never provokes an AoO.
If you leave a threatened square as part of doing the former, you provoke.
If you leave a threatened square as part of doing the latter, you do not provoke.
If a specific ability says, "this allows you to take an AoO against someone taking a five foot step", it does provoke, because that's a specific override.
Official Rules Response
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiny and smaller creatures: In the section on Tiny and smaller creatures, it says that entering a creature’s space provokes an attack of opportunity, but typically 5-foot steps don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If a Tiny or smaller creature took a 5-foot step into a creature’s space, would it provoke an attack of opportunity?
Yes. Even with a 5-foot step, a Tiny or smaller creature entering a creature’s space provokes an attack of opportunity (unless it is using a more specific ability to avoid the attack of opportunity such as the Monkey Shine feat). This doesn’t mean that a Tiny or smaller creature entering a creature’s space and moving out of a threatened square with a move action provokes two attacks of opportunity from that creature, for the same reason that moving out of multiple of a creature’s threatened squares in the same move action doesn’t provoke two attacks of opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like another FAQ that contradicts its own logic. The action that provokes the aoo is defined as being part of a move and so not provoking twice. Yet somehow the move still provokes when taken as a 5 foot step? It seems that either entering should be its own special action that provokes separate from the move or it should be avoidable by the 5 foot step since its part of a move.
Edit: Specifically it seems to contradict the logic of this FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like another FAQ that contradicts its own logic. The action that provokes the aoo is defined as being part of a move and so not provoking twice. Yet somehow the move still provokes when taken as a 5 foot step? It seems that either entering should be its own special action that provokes separate from the move or it should be avoidable by the 5 foot step since its part of a move.
Edit: Specifically it seems to contradict the logic of this FAQ.
Moving (genrally) provokes. Exception: movement in the form of a 5-ft-step doesn't. Exception to the exception: unless you're tiny.
Done.
The deeper we get into edge-conditions, the more it's going to be like this. Take the Tiny familiar on its master's shoulder, next to a foe. A 5-ft-step still provokes to enter the enemy's square, even though it's a 5-ft, and even though the square left had cover.
Really, what this FAQ (reasonably) says is that Tiny creatures can't (usefully) take 5-ft-steps. Makes sense. For them it's a big distance.
I'd actually simplify it and say:
(General rule) 5' step doesn't provoke.
(Exception) If you are tiny and take a 5' step into a creatures space, you do provoke.
Which is exactly how it is written in the book incidentally. The general rule for the 5' and an exception called out in the situation. Imagine that. How many threads to just be told it is how it is written in the book? LOL