| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So the question is if I am a Tiny sized creature and in a Medium sized opponent's square and that opponent 5' steps away, do I get an AoO on him?
Here is the text for Underfoot Assault:
At 1st level, if a foe whose size is larger than the mouser's is adjacent to her and misses her with a melee attack, the mouser can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet into an area of the attacker's space. This movement does not count against the mouser's movement the next round, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. While the mouser is within a foe's space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe's space.
While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.
The issue for me is that this is for PFS and I asked my Venture Lieutenant and they ruled against the AoO. I believe that they are incorrect but the rules are vague enough that I can see some ambiguity.
My opinion stems from specific trumping general 5' step rules and that 5' step is still moving, "to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space" and that while normally that 5" step wouldn't provoke, in this instance it would because the ability says that it would.
Their opinion stems from the ability not specifically mentioning a 5' step and that 5' steps never provoke so it shouldn't here either.
Before I go to my Venture Captain I want to make sure I am correct in my opinion. If there is still some ambiguity I will likely approach him anyway.
The part you quoted appears abundantly clear:
...but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser.
Specific trumps general. While PFS rules do require you to accept the decision of your DM (and the Venture Lieutenant) I think it's clear that they are wrong. The specific rule for your ability refers to any attempt to move.
If I were you, I'd accept the ruling at the time, but take it up the chain for future rulings. You're going to be doing this again, and you want the right ruling.
If it matters the Barbarian Rage Power Unexpected Strike has similar wording:
Benefit: The barbarian can make an attack of opportunity against a foe that moves into any square threatened by the barbarian, regardless of whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity.
I think it may all boil down to whether or not a 5' step is still considered "movement" or not.
So here is the rules for 5-foot step with my bolding:
Make 5-Foot Step
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.
The part you quoted appears abundantly clear:
...but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser.Specific trumps general. While PFS rules do require you to accept the decision of your DM (and the Venture Lieutenant) I think it's clear that they are wrong. The specific rule for your ability refers to any attempt to move.
If I were you, I'd accept the ruling at the time, but take it up the chain for future rulings. You're going to be doing this again, and you want the right ruling.
I agree on all points here. Well said, and good advice.
Wheldrake: Thanks for the support. That is what I had figured. I will see if that opinion is the popular opinion among other posters as well.
Nigrescence: Yes. I'm not sure if your statement is surprise that it was questioned at all, or if someone is laboring over the definition of movement. Either way it isn't clear where your opinion lies.
BTW: when this happened the GM is who made the original call. My VL backed them up separately. I was surprised to find two people who actually shared that opinion.
CampinCarl9127: Thanks for your support. So far it seems unanimous.
What I would like to know is if a creature can use acrobatics to avoid the AoO. Judging by strictly RAW it would be no, but I would probably allow it in any non PFS game.
Rory: I think that is a good way of looking at it too. "How would it work for a tiny sized creature without this ability?"
Of course the answer is that they would normally provoke and the tiny creature would get an AoO. So if that is true without the ability then what else is it meant to allow?
It should be that if he takes a 5-foot step it provokes, if he moves provokes twice
|
How I've been handling PFS table variation with this and my tiny-sized Fox Shape Kitsune is that if my 5' step into their square provokes, then their 5' step out of my square provokes (specific rules trumping the general 5' step rules). If my 5' step in doesn't provoke, neither does their 5' step out (5' step rule says "never"). I allow the GM decide which ruling he will incorporate for the scenario.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
CampinCarl9127: Thanks for your support. So far it seems unanimous.
Then I'll be the voice of dissent.
It's already been quoted in this thread. Everyone was so busy looking at, and bold-facing, the word "movement" that we're all ignoring the following sentence:
Make 5-Foot Step
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.
"never" is a very strong word. Very strong. I would personally expect that any ability that overrides this "never" should specifically say so. The mouser can attack anyone who moves out of the square. Fine. That's expected anyway. But there is no wording that specifically overrides the sentence I quoted here.
For me, I would need the following:
While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, even with a 5'-Step, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.
(note the bolded bit - I added that, it doesn't really say that)
If it said that, then I would say that this class ability has specific text that overrides the general rule. But it doesn't say that, so this is not a case of specific-overrides-general. This is a case of two specific rules (mouser can AoO when opponent moves, and taking a 5'-Step never provokes).
As far as I'm concerned, I have to apply BOTH of them.
The only way to do that is to parse them together so that the mouser can AoO when opponent moves except when the opponent takes a 5' step because that never provokes.
But apparently I'm in the minority on this. Nevertheless, it's not quite unanimous. Then again, what do I know? I'm a tarrasque; you ALL look like mousers to me.
Well, then, DM_Blake, since you are stepping up to the plate I will pose the following to you:
"How would it work for a tiny sized creature without this ability?"
Of course the answer is that they would normally provoke and the tiny creature would get an AoO. So if that is true without the ability then what else is it meant to allow?
And also... so are you saying that a 5' step is not "movement"? You know... per RAW.
Yes. Otherwise the ability does nothing.
Contributor
|
I would also like an official clarification that entering a foe's square through means other than the first paragraph of Underfoot Assault (such as Fox Shape) causes the second part to trigger.
I'm not especially concerned about what's "obvious" from the text. In the absence of official developer clarification, individual GMs will have to interpret the text... and any ambiguity means potential table variation.
|
Contributor
|
Kalindlara, I doubt we'll see official clarification. If something comes out, it'll probably be in the form of a errata or "rules-changing" FAQ.
Paizo is actually pretty good about spelling out when things do or do not apply. Generally, most sentences or paragraphs can stand alone, which suggests you don't need to use the first part of the ability to make use of the second.
An example of something similar might be the Archon Diversion feat. You can use the second paragraph without having had to use the first paragraph beforehand.
You're almost certainly correct.
Much like what's under discussion, though, each part of my post stands on its own as well. ^_^
The Step up and Strike feat allows you to follow a person after they move away with a 5' step and make an AoO against them. No where in this feat does it state that this feat overrides 5' step's "all-powerful" "never provokes" rule. However, it should be blatantly clear that the condition set in this feat overrides the general 5' step rule despite not specifically saying so.
Actually Step Up and Strike says exactly that it overrides the 5' step rule. The whole reason for its existence is to override the 5' step rule. This is not really a helpful argument.
If you really focus too much on the "never" part of that, then even an ability that explicitly states that it causes a 5' step to provoke wouldn't work because never means never... as in never ever. That would be a contradiction; two things that cannot both be true and also cannot both be false. Furthermore, there are two parts to an action provoking; the action itself and the movement. Take, for instance, Charge. Charge does not provoke; that is to say, taking the Charge action doesn't intrinsically provoke. However, the movement involved with a Charge does provoke. Likewise, there are two parts of a 5' step; the action itself, and the movement. By default, the movement doesn't provoke and the action itself never provokes. But certain abilities can cause the movement to provoke even though it normally wouldn't. That seems to be the case here.
I don't feel this is an effective argument either because it never provokes is the general rule that can be overridden by specific rules. Step Up and Strike and Unexpected Strike both have wording that specifically overrides the general rule, the mouser ability does not, which leaves me on the fence. One the one hand, if it applies to 5' steps, why doesn't it say so like Unexpected Strike does? If it doesn't, what's really the point of including it at all? I am a "players" GM so I would probably rule that a 5' step does provoke, but wouldn't be upset if another GM didn't see it that way.
Actually Step Up and Strike says exactly that it overrides the 5' step rule. The whole reason for its existence is to override the 5' step rule. This is not really a helpful argument.
Yes it is. Because the entire reason for the mousers ability is to let you take AOOs for ways of getting out of your square that would normally deny you the AOO... namely 5 foot step and withdraw. If it doesn't work against those abilities then it doesn't work at all. if you can just evade the entire archetype with no penalty just for taking 5 foot steps then the archetype is useless. The entire point of the archtype is to be annoying in someone's square. The aoo tax for leaving it is a deliberate effort to make that possible.
you can try to claim prone shooter, but there's only one way to read prone shooter. If there's multiple ways of reading something and one is a reasonable ability required to make the class function at all and one does nothing you're pretty much stuck with the first one.
I would also like an official clarification that entering a foe's square through means other than the first paragraph of Underfoot Assault (such as Fox Shape) causes the second part to trigger.
I'm not especially concerned about what's "obvious" from the text. In the absence of official developer clarification, individual GMs will have to interpret the text... and any ambiguity means potential table variation.
Look at the 11th level mouser ability. Its very clearly designed to put you into the opponents square without getting swung at.
We started an FAQ for that Here . But the FAQ's been on hiatus for a bit.
That said, i do not see room or reason for the no interpretation. It clearly says while you are in that space. it says nothing of how you got there.
Yes it is. Because the entire reason for the mousers ability is to let you take AOOs for ways of getting out of your square that would normally deny you the AOO... namely 5 foot step and withdraw. If it doesn't work against those abilities then it doesn't work at all. if you can just evade the entire archetype with no penalty just for taking 5 foot steps then the archetype is useless. The entire point of the archtype is to be annoying in someone's square. The aoo tax for leaving it is a deliberate effort to make that possible.
I would hardly call giving someone -4 to attacks and providing flanking bonuses to every adjacent ally "useless". So no the whole reason it exists isn't to get AoO, unlike Step Up and Strike.
I would hardly call giving someone -4 to attacks and providing flanking bonuses to every adjacent ally "useless". So no the whole reason it exists isn't to get AoO, unlike Step Up and Strike.
you won't be doing any of that if they can just 5 foot step away from you.
-4 to attacks: 5 foot step away. Hit someone else.
Flanking: delay/ready until right after the mouser, 5 foot step out
Theres NO incentive to not simply leave the mousers square without that ability.
The ability does nothing if it doesn't stop 5 foot steps and withdraws. Even a tiny creature threatens their own square.
What does the ability do by your reading?
Keep in mind, the mouser gave up parry and riposte for this ability, which is you've had a swashbuckler you know is like swashbuckler haste on steroids. It should be a fair trade
Why does a Rogue's sneak attack require flanking? Ready action, or a delay and it completely negates it, so there is precedent here. Let's analyze it further. If the Mouser can force the baddie to waste its attack readying a 5' step I'd call that a win for the Mouser. If the baddie delays until after the Mouser's turn, the Mouser can 5' step and Ready. This gives everyone flanking, gives the baddie -4 to any AoO while the mouser's allies get into position (effectively giving everyone Mobility).
As far as Parry and Riposte, it allows for 1 AoO per round, and if you take it, it costs you 1 panache and your swift action. Sure you can parry more, with combat reflexes, but each one costs a panache point. Compare that to a positional ability that allows you to give someone -4 to attacks and provide flanking to everyone. Not to mention that this can happen after the creature's turn.
Let me clarify my position: I am not convinced that allowing a 5' step negates this ability, but if I were GM'ing I would side with the player and allow the AoO.
Why does a Rogue's sneak attack require flanking? Ready action, or a delay and it completely negates it
This is not the case. There are many squares you can get flanked from. There is only one square with the mouser in it.
so there is precedent here. Let's analyze it further. If the Mouser can force the baddie to waste its attack readying a 5' step I'd call that a win for the Mouser. If the baddie delays until after the Mouser's turn, the Mouser can 5' step and Ready.
This probably doesn't work. The mouser would need to be able to 5 foot step into their space: which would require them to be tiny (an argument can be made for tiny or 3 size catagories different but the latter isn;'t supposed to work apparently...)
As far as Parry and Riposte, it allows for 1 AoO per round, and if you take it, it costs you 1 panache and your swift action.
A swift action attack is the sweetest trade in the game.
My swashbuckler usually runs past the mook, draws the aoo on purpose, parry ripostes him, kills him, gets the panache back, goes up to the bad guy, ends turn, gets swung at and parry ripostes him in the face... with a 1/5ish chance to get the penache point back too. Its an extra attack a round and means you can have a decent armor class with nothing but a sword and your tighty whities (tiny whities optional. My swashbuckler is a kitsune and they have encumbrance issues)
Sure you can parry more, with combat reflexes, but each one costs a panache point.
it comes back. I keep track of it with stones because it fluctuates so wildly.
compare that to a positional ability that allows you to give someone -4 to attacks and provide flanking to everyone. Not to mention that this can happen after the creature's turn.
It provides a -4 for anyone OTHER than you to be hit, which since you don't have the fancy parry means that hitting you becomes a real expedient solution. The other way ,you don't actually provide it at all since the bad guy can just 5 foot out and swing at someone else. You only provide flanking to people that go in between you and the boss, which you can do a dozen other ways like by actually flanking.
Hmm. Interesting stuff. Nothing that really alters my opinion on the topic. The FAQ thread BNW linked was due to a spin off from one of my earlier threads on the topic as well. It is ironic because at the time I had been talking about never having run into anyone who even questioned it.
Also, I still don't understand how the naysayers think the ability DOES work. To me it seems like they just think it doesn't work at all.
It was said better as the following:
The ability does nothing if it doesn't stop 5 foot steps and withdraws. Even a tiny creature threatens their own square.
What does the ability do by your reading?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL/DR: If you're in the "no it does not provoke" camp, what does that text actually mean, then? Why is it there?
============
but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser.
I think the wording "moves to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space" clearly covers 5-foot steps. Otherwise, there is no reason for that text to be there.
If a foe leaves a threatened square without a 5-foot step, it always provokes. The ability already said the mouser threatens the square it's, so there is no reason to reiterate that leaving a threatened square provokes. For withdraws, only the first square doesn't threaten, so again, the mouser would still get an AoO on a withdraw anyway.
If you don't think the ability allows the mouser to threaten on a 5 foot step out of the square, what exactly do you think that text means? Why do you think it is there?
And I don't think that "just to remind us about the general movement rules" is a strong answer here. First because if they were reminding us of the general rule, I would expect them to refer to that rule somehow (e.g., by using the same wording as the rule, calling out the rule explicitly, or just adding the words "as usual" or "like normal" or something).
Second, because of the Rule of Copyfitting. "I want to remind people about a general rule that I am not altering in any way" is not a strong reason to leave 2 whole lines of text in a book.
In print publications, column inches are an exceedingly precious commodity. You can't add a single page: you have to add them in sets of four.
A copyfitter's job is to crawl through the text character by character and pull out any unneeded text, and in many cases text that would be really nice but isn't crucial to understanding. I've had cases where the addition of a single comma forced a book to go an extra four pages--even though the comma was grammatically correct, it's wasn't 100% necessary, and we left it out.
A full two lines of unnecessary text would be a gigantic target for the editor and copyfitter both. The writer would have to make a good argument for leaving it in.
In our area, GMs tend to agree that it does provoke. I haven't met one yet that doesn't.
This either a restatement of the general rule that movement out of a threatened space (you always threaten all your own spaces) provokes, or an amendment to that same rule
you don't take up wordcount in an archetype restating rules that are in the CRB.
No answer from a naysayer?
I'm not asking to instigate. I am asking because I truly do not understand the other side of this discussion and I want to know what the logical counterpoint is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Naysayer" isn't really a neutral term.
I think the other side of the argument is as DM_Blake said, the word NEVER is a strong word.
How about the H.M.S. Pinafore side?
What never?
No never
What never?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I think some people put too much emphasis on the word "never". That portion of the 5' rules can be overridden like any other rules text. It was phrased that way to emphasize that it's normally a safe way to adjust your position, and not as an attempt to prevent any other rule from ever superseding it. (imho)
You're putting the wrong emphasis on my previous post.
OF COURSE any rule can supersede the 5'Step rule. EVERY RULE IN THE GAME can be superseded by any other rule. Of course, it's a good idea if the superseding rule actually MENTIONS the rule it's superseding.
Underfoot Assault does not mention the 5'Step rule. Could it be that the author was merely restating a basic rule? Maybe. Maybe he didn't even realize you threaten your own space. We assume he did, but maybe not. It's hard to say. I could literally argue either side of this debate.
Meanwhile, the 5'Step rule has very strong wording. As I said before, "never" is strongly worded.
IMO, any rule that is going to supersede another rule needs to mention that rule explicitly. It is not sufficient to hint at what rules are being superseded, nor is it sufficient to make a generic blanket statement and let the readers decide how to apply it.
This is even more necessary for strongly worded rules like the 5'Step rule.
I remain wholly unconvinced that Underfoot Assault allows a mouser to make an AoO against a 5'Step that NEVER provokes. As I've been labeled a naysayer, I must say "nay".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Step up and Strike feat allows you to follow a person after they move away with a 5' step and make an AoO against them. No where in this feat does it state that this feat overrides 5' step's "all-powerful" "never provokes" rule. However, it should be blatantly clear that the condition set in this feat overrides the general 5' step rule despite not specifically saying so.
It is actually blatantly clear that it does the opposite: it never overrides the 5'Step rule. And yes, I just used the very strong "never".
You should re-read Step Up and Strike. Here, I'll help:
Benefit: When using the Step Up or Following Step feats to follow an adjacent foe, you may also make a single melee attack against that foe at your highest base attack bonus. This attack counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round. Using this feat does not count toward the number of actions you can usually take each round.
So what does it actually say?
When an opponent takes his 5'Step away from you (this is predicated upon the Step Up feat), you may follow that foe. So far, nothing about his 5'Step provoking.
In addition to following him, you may make a single melee attack against that foe. Again, no mention of provoking. This is NOT an AoO because the 5'Step NEVER provokes and this rule did NOT override that.
If you do make that attack, it counts as one of your AoOs for this round.
Now, why would an AoO count as an AoO? Who would write such a ridiculous thing? Nobody would write that an AoO counts as an AoO. And they did not write such a silly thing here because your attack is not an AoO but you must count it as one because this rule says so.
Simple.
Not an override at all.
Underfoot Assault does not mention the 5'Step rule. Could it be that the author was merely restating a basic rule? Maybe. Maybe he didn't even realize you threaten your own space. We assume he did, but maybe not. It's hard to say. I could literally argue either side of this debate.
It doesn't mention ANY rules. If there was a list of things it worked on and 5 foot step wasn't on it, they yes you could just 5 foot step out. But as its written you're making it a prone shooter option and really neutering the archetype by making it ridiculously easy to avoid the mouser at no cost.
Lol, wut? "Naysayer" has no negative connotation other than pointing out that the person is saying no to something. Surely no one is trying to imply that the use of that word was somehow a personal attack?
That being said it is definitely NOT a neutral word as it is being directed at someone who does not have a neutral stance. A neutral stance would probably be someone saying something like "I really don't know. Lets FAQ it." Or something like that.
As for what was actually said my previous question was still not answered. What do the naysayers actually think that part of the ability DOES. I have heard a lot of talk about what it doesn't do, but nothing about what it does. I do not buy that the were just reprinting text in slightly different language for no other reason than to take up space. In fact, I don't think even the naysayers believe that.
On a separate note I don't believe that "never" ever truly means never. Even outside of this discussion either. And as Byakko pointed out, other abilities that are clearly designed to work despite a "never" clause being used AND despite a distinct lack of a counter "even though it says never this happens anyway" clause we all agree those work.
I mean...don't we? Cause if we all do agree on that then it makes the whole "but it is lacking a clause saying that it overrides the earlier 'never'" argument fairly flimsy.
Also I think it is time to start FAQing this.
Lol, wut? "Naysayer" has no negative connotation other than pointing out that the person is saying no to something.
"Naysayer: One who frequently engages in excessive complaining, negative banter and/or a genuinely poor and downbeat attitude."
Source: Google.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a separate note I don't believe that "never" ever truly means never.
Going by the traditional "specific trumps general" I believe that in order to trump the "5 foot step never provokes" rule it would have to specifically mentions it works for 5 foot steps for this feat to work by RAW. But it's probably supposed to do something, so it's probably RAI. GM call if it doesn't get FAQd.