Well, there is your problem right there. You are using Google as your dictionary. Probably not a good policy BTW. Checking Merriam Webster gets the following
nay·say·er
\ˈnā-ˌsā-ər, -ˌser\
noun
: a person who says something will not work or is not possible : a person who denies, refuses, or opposes something
Full Definition
:one who denies, refuses, opposes, or is skeptical or cynical about something
..yep, seems pretty accurate to me. No negative connotation.
Other than that...its just a word, man. If you are trying to imply that I meant something hurtful by it I can assure you that I did not. I also don't think I hurt Blake's feelings.
...who are we kidding anyway? We all know Terrasques do not have feelings. Lol
Also, Matthew Downie, the last two paragraphs of my last post on the previous page pertains to your last post. There are plenty of places in the rules that override a "never" clause without specifically stating "this overrides the never clause in the general rule". Like Byakko pointed out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Matthew Downie, the last two paragraphs of my last post on the previous page pertains to your last post. There are plenty of places in the rules that override a "never" clause without specifically stating "this overrides the never clause in the general rule". Like Byakko pointed out.
I'm not saying that Underfoot Assault must specifically call out the "never clause". I'm only saying it must explicitly call out the 5'Step rule, otherwise I take the strongly-worded 5'Step rule as not being included in the weakly-worded Underfoot Assault feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really Rory, this would not be the first case of an ability giving you the ability to do something you can already do (example: pre-errata Prone Shooter).
Gauss: That has been brought up as supporting evidence for the pro-crowd. It is seen as an issue of having two ways of reading something only one of which being logical as it allows the character to do something that they otherwise couldn't without the feat.
Rory: That is, exactly, the question that has been asked repeatedly for the naysayers to answer. Without knowing this I can't see any supporting logic behind their stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Checking Merriam Webster gets the following
nay·say·er
\ˈnā-ˌsā-ər, -ˌser\
noun
: a person who says something will not work or is not possible : a person who denies, refuses, or opposes something
Full Definition
:one who denies, refuses, opposes, or is skeptical or cynical about something..yep, seems pretty accurate to me. No negative connotation.
Other than that...its just a word, man. If you are trying to imply that I meant something hurtful by it I can assure you that I did not.
I'm sure you meant it inoffensively, but if UrbanDictionary believes it has negative connotations, then a lot of other people probably believe it too. Standard dictionaries will probably catch up with the popular usage of the word sooner or later.
Similarly, words like "roll-player" or "power-gamer" might have non-derogatory meanings, but I'm not going to call someone that and then tell them they're wrong not to like it.
Also, Matthew Downie, the last two paragraphs of my last post on the previous page pertains to your last post. There are plenty of places in the rules that override a "never" clause without specifically stating "this overrides the never clause in the general rule".
There are places where it is might be RAI that some rules should override a "never", but that doesn't mean it is RAW that they do. (And dead people can still take actions. I'm not a PFS GM so I don't take RAW very seriously.)
RAW: "A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way."
Gaining new spells from a feat or similar occurs when attaining a new level, so that's not a problem. Page of Spell Knowledge: "she may use her spell slots to cast that spell as if it were one of her spells known". Note that the spell is not actually "gained", so that isn't forbidden either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rory, Paizo has created abilities and feats that do nothing or do not work as intended because of either poor wording or due to a poor understanding of the rules by the author.
One such example is the pre-errata Prone Shooter feat where it allowed you to shoot a crossbow while prone. Something already allowed by the rules WITHOUT a feat.
Lune, game logic states that if a rule is going to override another rule it must state that clearly. Underfoot Assault does not state that. Example of what it could say: "...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, even if moving would normally not provoke an attack of opportunity." (Bold section is the added override.)
Such a statement would deal with any number of rules that avoid movement related AoOs.
So either
A) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not understand that tiny creatures still threaten their own squares.
or
B) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not provide an exception to the existing rules.
Either way, it needs an errata or FAQ in order to work correctly. Until that point, it is a GM call and you should expect table variance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of mentioning the three above movement modes specifically, which would have taken a bit more verbiage, the mouser ability simply covered them all by neatly saying "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."
Maybe. All your examples (not quoted for brevity) paint a collective picture that makes sense. It requires intuition, which your full post laid out quite nicely. It requires assumptions which you proposed eloquently.
But that is a bad way to write a rulebook. No rulebook should be written so that the rules need intuitive assumptions by the players.
In addition, it's entirely possible that the author was simply reminding people that leaving an occupied square provokes from an enemy that occupies that square.
It's worth noting that the AoO rules in the Combat chapter do not ACTUALLY say that you threaten your own square. In fact, they explicitly say you threaten adjacent squares and they do NOT speak about your own square at all.
If you look at a different part of the Combat chapter (NOT the AoO rules) you find the Big and Little Creatures rules. In that section it says you can attack into your own square. Arguably, it still doesn't say you threaten your own square but I think by this point it may be intuitive that you threaten squares into which you can attack. Even if it's not intuitive, the AoO section says you threaten all square into which you can make a melee attack.
So a well-versed rules expert can combine these two sections, the AoO rules and the Big/Little Creature rules, two different sections of the Combat chapter, and parse the fact that you can threaten your own square such that anyone moving out of it provokes.
Even so, that requires the player to do that parsing because the actual AoO rules are incomplete on this specific point.
So maybe the Underfoot Assault author was ONLY trying to clarify exactly that point - that you can make an AoO a creature who leaves your square even when he doesn't leave an adjacent square. From a rules perspective, that actually SHOULD be clarified and the guy who wrote Underfoot Assault did exactly that.
Did he do more than simply clarify that point? Did he give permission to make an AoO on a 5'Step, Withdraw, or Acrobatic move?
Maybe, maybe not.
Regardless, simply saying that he had no reason to write what he did is wrong. He had a very good reason to write it, even if it only applies to ordinary provoking movement.
Not really Rory, this would not be the first case of an ability giving you the ability to do something you can already do (example: pre-errata Prone Shooter).
Except you're making it a non ability through an interpretation, not text. HUGE difference.
This is an ability that replaces parry and riposte, an ability that gives you an attack of opportunity just for being attacked. Nothing else in the mouser is nearly powerful to justify giving up the best part of a swashbuckler to have a prone shooter option in its place.
Without the ability to make these aoo's the mouser simply doesn't work: the mouser has no other ability to keep you in its square.
Rory, where does it state that? Nowhere that I have seen states that it is overriding ANY rule.
You are assuming it overrides it simply because the other options do not work. Well, welcome to Pathfinder, a game where some options do not work until errata'd or FAQ'd.
This is the rules forum, where, for the purposes of this discussion, all we have to go by are the rules, and until an author or Paizo Dev states intent that is all we have.
The rules do not state an exception, therefore there is none. However, as you correctly stated, you are the GM and thus free to rule any way you desire.
But this is not your game, this is the rules forum. And in the rules forum, 'how it should work' is not how the rules work. This would not be the first rule that fails to do what it is supposed to do.
BigNorseWolf, First, I am not applying interpretation here. I am applying the text. The text fails to state an exception to other text. Thus, it does not provide an exception.
Second, your point is...because it would be a pointless ability otherwise it must work that way? That is not how the rules work. There are many pointless abilities that do not work because they are not written correctly. People can houserule them of course. :)
The really funny thing is, Lune answered his own question in his second post where he quoted an ability that specifically made an exception. An exception that is not provided by Underfoot Assault.
Unexpected Strike specifically calls out that movement that does not provoke still provokes. Underfoot Assault does not do that.
Without the ability to make these aoo's the mouser simply doesn't work: the mouser has no other ability to keep you in its square.
You mean the mouser has nothing like the following:
- being able to enter an enemy's space who is only ONE size larger
- being able to enter an enemy's space without provoking
- -4 penalty on all attacks the enemy makes against all allies
- providing flanking for up to EIGHT allies
That is definitely NOT "no other ability" and far from "the mouser simply doesn't work".
Is it enough to justify the archetype? Maybe, maybe not. But it's enough to refute the argument that making AoOs against a 5'Step is the defining or required or especially only reason to have Underfoot Assault.
A) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not understand that tiny creatures still threaten their own squares.
or
B) We have a feat that does not work correctly because the author did not provide an exception to the existing rules.
or
C) We have an ability that works correctly because the mouser specific ability overrides the general rules for 5-foot step, Withdraw, Acrobatics tumbling and all other movement that escapes the mouser's square.
If two options do not work and one option does, then odds are that the working option is the correct option. This is the logical GM position (to me) until they write that FAQ or errata.
In my previous post (before the one I'm quoting here), I demonstrated how option A is perfectly valid and serves as a clarification of the poorly worded AoO section of the Combat chapter.
I'll also submit that option B is entirely possible. It happens. Gauss has demonstrated one example of it happening. We cannot assume a class feature does extra things because we predicate that on the assumption that devs NEVER create rules based on misunderstanding existing rules.
I'll further suggest that dismissing either A or B for these flawed reasons is logically invalid because you seem to believe that the entire "feat" (I assume you mean class ability) is worthless without being able to make AoOs against 5'Steps. I disagree. It does many things (see my post immediately before this one) and therefore is NOT rendered worthless nor necessarily even "does not work correctly" by being unable to make an AoO against the never-provoking 6'Step.
Given all of that, I think A, B, and C are all more-or-less equally valid options for what the authors' intent/understanding/error might have been.
Nevertheless, what is actually written doesn't explicitly grant the ability you think it does: there is no AoO vs. a 5'Step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the mouser has nothing like the following:
The mouser can use none of the following.
[list]
IF
he's swung at, and the opponent is larger, and IF he's missed, and he's within 5 feet, and you can spend a panache point then you can step in.
IF he's swung at, and the opponent is larger, and IF he's missed, and he's within 5 feet, and you can spend a panache point then you can step in.
IF he's swung at, and the opponent is larger, and IF he's missed, and he's within 5 feet, and you can spend a panache point then you can step in, and the opponent doesn't just swing at you, AND the opponent doesn't just five foot step away to swing at someone else.
That confluence of events has the two weapon fighting rogue feel better about their prospects by comparison.
providing flanking for up to EIGHT allies
IF he's swung at, and the opponent is larger, and IF he's missed, and he's within 5 feet, and you can spend a panache point then you can step in, and the opponent do AND the opponent doesn't just five foot step away before your allies attack. This trick only works once: after that the guy doesn't swing at you anymore if he can help it.
Is it enough to justify the archetype? Maybe, maybe not. But it's enough to refute the argument that making AoOs against a 5'Step is the defining or required or especially only reason to have Underfoot Assault.
look how ridiculously circumstantial using any of those abilities is if there's no cost in stepping away.
Rory, yes, it is better to assume the authors mean what they write.
If the Devs mean what they write then we cannot take what is written and treat it as an exception unless it is stated to be one. Why? Because it isn't written that way.
Specific trumps General only when it is written that way. This is not written that way.
Rory, yes, it is better to assume the authors mean what they write.
If the Devs mean what they write then we cannot take what is written and treat it as an exception unless it is stated to be one. Why? Because it isn't written that way.
Specific trumps General only when it is written that way. This is not written that way.
It is written that way because its a very particular ability of one archetype of one class. Its incredibly specific, while 5 foot steps are incredibly broad.
That is possible. Hiding what should be a general rule "that actually SHOULD be clarified" in a specific ability in an archetype ability description in a whole new book from the general combat and AOO rules...
I would say that is a far worse method of writing rules than simply introducing a specific ability that trumps general Combat and Movement rules. I hope you agree.
I would totally agree with that, but you misunderstood me. Or I wasn't clear.
The author wasn't clarifying the general rule for all time. He was clarifying the ability he wrote so that people who misunderstood the general rule would still be able to use this class feature correctly.
And he definitely was not "hiding" it in a more obscure location than its actual split-location that can be parsed from the Core book.
I'm NOT suggesting that the author thought "Hmmm, these AoO rules are incomplete regarding threatening your own square, so I'll just clear that right up in this one line of text here in a class feature of an archetype in an optional splat book".
I AM suggesting that the author thought "Hmmm, these AoO rules are incomplete regarding threatening your own square and people using the class feature that I am creating might not know the whole rule, so I will clarify that this class feature includes the general ability so that I know people who want to use this class feature will be able to use it correctly."
|
I'm with DM Blake on this. 5-foot steps should never provoke AoOs. Else everyone's gonna be a mouser. It's too strong an exploit to just rule in your favor, considering the mouser text says nothing about ignoring 5-foot steps. Movement means a move. 10 to 20 foot moves for small creatures and 10 to 30 foot moves for Medium.
Think about the poor, underpowered wizard who will not be able to 5-foot step away to properly fire a disintegrate at you.
Always think of the wizard.
He has a lot of pull at City Hall, and the mouser... not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf, I agree with you, it is a particular ability. I also agree with you, it is specific. However, it does not provide a specific exception to movement that does not provoke. ANY movement that does not provoke.
Lune has already shown an ability that clearly states that movement that does not normally provoke provokes, so clearly the Devs can write such a thing into the rules.
That statement is missing from this ability, you, and others, are trying to insert it.
This has nothing to do with intent of the rules. This is entirely, what is written. And based on what is written there is no exception provided that allows you to make an AoO for movement that does not have an AoO.
Matthew Downie: I'll not continue to quibble over whether a dictionary definition of a word is false or not especially after agreeing that no offense was intended or taken. If you still believe there is some issue with the word "naysayer" please report my post and move along. There is no room for a forum paladin with a white knight syndrome protecting an emotionless terasque who was never offended.
I think it is equally pointless to quibble over the definition of "gained" as I am fairly certain that if I were to post the dictionary definition of that word you would find some reason to argue that the definition I gave is somehow not applicable to the situation and that your more correct definition is somehow superior.
I'm sorry but it doesn't sound like you are being very constructive here. I think we are very far apart on what we believe "gained" to mean. Most of the rest of your post(s) seem to be regarding some imagined slight against another person. I'm not sure if you and I have anything further to talk about.
BigNorseWolf, I agree with you, it is a particular ability. I also agree with you, it is specific. However, it does not provide a specific exception to movement that does not provoke. ANY movement that does not provoke.
It does. That is in fact ALL that it does. That is specifically what it says it does.
Lune has already shown an ability that clearly states that movement that does not normally provoke provokes, so clearly the Devs can write such a thing into the rules.
And therefore everythig must be written the exact same way? Come on you know better.
That statement is missing from this ability, you, and others, are trying to insert it.
Because its there. You 5 foot stepped out of a square. Did you move out of the mousers square? yes. AOO. Thats explicitly what it says.
Because without it the archetype doesn't work.
Because it has an absurd amount of symmetry with the ability it replaces: spend a penache point this way: spend a panache point, get an AOO
This has nothing to do with intent of the rules. This is entirely, what is written. And based on what is written there is no exception provided that allows you to make an AoO for movement that does not have an AoO.
You don't need one. What is written is that the ability provides an AOO. What is also written is that other maneuvers don't provoke AOOs. What is written is a contradiction. You have to solve it based on something else.
RAW: getting the AOO is a perfectly valid way to read the ability. It flat out says you get the AOO
Specific trumps general: This is a very narrow circumstance, one archetype of one class under some very specific conditions. It is by far more specific than the 5 foot step.
Balance: You gave up opportune party and riposte for this. Turning it into prone shooter nerfs the archetype beyond usability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rory, where does it state that? Nowhere that I have seen states that it is overriding ANY rule.Specific trumps general is a common premise. Do you agree with that? That seems to be a pretty common premise in the rules forum.
Absolutely.
But first, the "specific" thing must actually SAY, preferably explicitly state, that it actually trumps the "general" thing. When it doesn't even mention the "general" thing then it doesn't trump it at all. In fact, it not only does not trump it, but it must actually be reconciled with the general rule.
Rory, the problem with other options that work correctly is that, in this case, you have to actually re-write the ability to provide the exception.
This is the rules forum, we cannot re-write rules here and say that they are the rules, that is what houserules are for.
Frankly, the simplest explanation is A, that the author thought (like many do) that tiny creatures do not threaten and thus added extra verbage.
Perhaps I overstated it when I said it didnt work, more accurately, option A is a restatement of the rules rather than not working correctly. (Thats what I get for posting early in the morning.)
BigNorseWolf,
Please provide the specific exception that states you get an AoO when you normally wouldn't because, I cannot find it.
Regarding the archetype not working, that is not relevant to the discussion except perhaps to request an Errata to fix the issue (assuming it exists, you haven't shown how the archetype wouldn't work).
Symmetry with what it replaces is also not relevant.
Yes, it absolutely needs an exception otherwise it does not provide one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5' Steps never provoke, I'm not contesting this.
However, it is not "taking a 5' step" that is provoking here, it is the "attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space" that is provoking. The movement is provoking, not the 5' step free action. Underfoot Assault doesn't mention an action type (e.g. move action) as provoking, it mentions an attempt to move. A 5' step doesn't provoke, but attempting to leave a Mouser's space using movement does, so 5' steps don't save you. (Same goes for Tiny creatures and entering an opponents space, the 5' step doesn't provoke, but "entering" does.)
Rory, it is really incomprehensible that you are stating that you believe the author meant what they wrote and then you go adding text to it to make it work the way you want it to.
Nowhere did the author provide a written exception to various movement types not provoking. How can you add that in if he didn't write it?
The fundamental premise of specific trumping general is that it must in some way contradict or state that it is trumping some other rule or rules. That is not the case here. There is no such statement.
Just a statement that, at best, can be considered a restatement of an often misunderstood rule.
BigNorseWolf,
Please provide the specific exception that states you get an AoO when you normally wouldn't because, I cannot find it.
That's what abilities DO. They change the normal rules of the game. That is the entire point of them.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
The mouser doesn't do this. So how does he flank? His ability says that this rule doesn't apply.
Regarding the archetype not working, that is not relevant to the discussion
It is incredibly relevant.
What you have is an exception to a rule.
You're reading that exception as a contradiction.
You resolve that contradiction against the mouser.
In doing so you break not only the ability, but the entire archetype.
If multiple, different ways of reading a rule and resolving a contradiction are perfectly valid by raw and one way of reading it results in a usable but not overpowered ability that synergizes with the entire point of the archetype while one results in breaking the class/archtype/whatever then that adds a lot of credence to the first one.
You have to realize that your interpretation is not THE raw. It is as best A raw. One way of reading the raw. There are others.
you haven't shown how the archetype wouldn't work).
I have. Your inability to acknowledge this hurts your position of relying entirely on your opinion of what the raw is.
Yes, it absolutely needs an exception otherwise it does not provide one.
Its very existence is an exception. Thats what special abilities are.
5' Steps never provoke, I'm not contesting this.
However, it is not "taking a 5' step" that is provoking here, it is the "attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space" that is provoking. The movement is provoking, not the 5' step free action. Underfoot Assault doesn't mention an action type (e.g. move action) as provoking, it mentions an attempt to move. A 5' step doesn't provoke, but attempting to leave a Mouser's space using movement does, so 5' steps don't save you. (Same goes for Tiny creatures and entering an opponents space, the 5' step doesn't provoke, but "entering" does.)
Interesting idea. So it is your position that leaving a mousers square can provoke twice? Once for movement and once for for the special clause? (Same as a tiny creature entering a square, once for movement and once for the special clause of entering a creatures square.)
Interesting idea. So it is your position that leaving a mousers square can provoke twice? Once for movement and once for for the special clause? (Same as a tiny creature entering a square, once for movement and once for the special clause of entering a creatures square.)5' Steps never provoke, I'm not contesting this.
However, it is not "taking a 5' step" that is provoking here, it is the "attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space" that is provoking. The movement is provoking, not the 5' step free action. Underfoot Assault doesn't mention an action type (e.g. move action) as provoking, it mentions an attempt to move. A 5' step doesn't provoke, but attempting to leave a Mouser's space using movement does, so 5' steps don't save you. (Same goes for Tiny creatures and entering an opponents space, the 5' step doesn't provoke, but "entering" does.)
Thats still under debate. And its not how the same wording worked inn 3.5
BigNorseWolf,
First, please show me the post where you clearly indicated how the archetype does not work. I have seen you make many statements to the effect that it wouldn't work but I do not remember a post where you showed it. (And please leave the personal attacks out of it that was not necessary.)
Second, the existence of special abilities does not mean that they are exceptions. They must contradict a rule in some way for them to become an exception to that rule. Extra rules does not automatically make them an exception to any specific rule unless they contradict that rule.
You have yet to show how this is in any way a contradiction to the rule. I have shown how it can BE that rule. Thus, the rest of your case is based on 'the archetype doesn't work without it'. I am asking you to prove that case or link the post where you did so.
Rory, I was being civil, I could not understand how you can say you were reading the rules and yet providing an exception to another rule.
But, if your premise is that this is not movement related AoO but a special AoO unto itself then I can understand that. Mousers would get two AoOs when someone moves (or one for a 5' step, withdraw, or acrobatics).
Frankly, that is an entirely different concept that nobody has even brought up until ShieldLawrence did. If that is your position, then the wording may support it.
BigNorseWolf,
First, please show me the post where you clearly indicated how the archetype does not work.
Extra rules does not automatically make them an exception to any specific rule unless they contradict that rule.
Yes. Yes they are. That is the entire point of them. Where are you getting this stuff?
You have yet to show how this is in any way a contradiction to the rule.
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.
vs
Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity.
If you 5 foot step out of an opponents square do you move to a position where the mouser is no longer in the opponents space? Probably. If you do so do you provoke? The mouseer says yes, the never rule in 5 foot step says no.
I have shown how it can BE that rule.
With what? Prone shooter? One error doesn't negate the point of every special ability in the game.
Thus, the rest of your case is based on 'the archetype doesn't work without it'. I am asking you to prove that case or link the post where you did so.
If you want civility, don't accuse people of adding text without apparently bothering to read any of their rational for reading the text that way.
Rory, that example provides a clear contradiction of an existing rule and specific then trumps general. It is clearly referencing spells known on the spell list.
For Underfoot Assault, is there any reference to 5' steps, withdraw, acrobatics, or even the normal AoO negation of some types of movement? Without that, it is not a contradiction or an exception since it must at least reference the rule in some fashion for it to contradict it or be an exception to it.
Specific trumping general is NOT limited to cases where specific calls out every single other rule.
Gauss Is a 5 foot step movement?
But first, the "specific" thing must actually SAY, preferably explicitly state, that it actually trumps the "general" thing. When it doesn't even mention the "general" thing then it doesn't trump it at all. In fact, it not only does not trump it, but it must actually be reconciled with the general rule.This hypothesis works as you state, I agree, but only until one example is given showing it is not true.
General Rule: Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way.
FCB Specific Rule: Sorcerer: Add one spell known from the sorcerer spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast.
The specific rule never mentions the general rule. They are in conflict, but everyone knows that this specific rule trumps the general rule.
I could have conceivably agreed with you if the sorcerer class said "Sorcerers never add spells except upon gaining a new level." But then I would argue that you only apply FCBs when you gain a level so it's not a conflict.
I really would only have agreed with you if the sorcerer class said "Sorcerers never add spells except upon gaining a new level and only as shown on their chart; never from any other means."
If it said that, then I would expect the FCB to actually say "This is an exception to the sorcerer rule about never adding spells from other means."
Even without that extra text, what I would say is "Here's a FCB that literally does nothing due to poor wording. By RAW, this is a broken FCB. By RAI, sorcerers should gain one spell. I will play it by RAI."
That said, there is no "never" clause in the sorcerer (or bard) rules for acquiring new spells. Their class rules simply tell you one way to get new spells. The common way, the ordinary way, to be sure, but there is no strongly-worded "never" clause to literally and explicitly deny all other (or any other) method of acquiring a new spell.
So the analogy is not a valid one.
Even if it were valid, I would still say "Underfoot Assault has a clear and carefully defined set of rules that make it a valid class feature for this archetype. It works with or without being able to make AoOs against 5'Steps. Its weakly-worded reference to movement does not explicitly call out an exception to the strongly-worded 5'Step rule so it does not explicitly grant such a RAW exception. And since it doesn't need that exception to be a valid class feature, I cannot even realistically claim RAI for that exception."
BigNorseWolf, perhaps your link was broken but post #85 does not in any way show how the archetype does not work. In fact, it is the post I was responding to when I asked for you to show me the post.
Do you have a different post in mind?
Regarding it being a contradiction, please bold the section that makes any statement that even hints that it can make AoOs against targets that normally are not subject to movement related AoOs.
Without such a statement there is nothing to contradict.
Look, this is pretty basic, in order for a rule to be a contradiction to another rule there must actually be a contradiction. There is none in this case.
As written, it is either:
A (pointless?) restatement of tiny creatures threatening their own space.
OR
It is a poorly worded rule that is intended to do what you are suggesting.
OR
It is an entirely separate form of AoO (yes, I know the double AoO for entering a square is under debate, but that is what at least one person is now suggesting).
If it is supposed to do what you are suggesting then the wording needs to be fixed because, as written, it does not do what you suggest.
If it is an entirely separate form of AoO, then it will wind up in the same double-AoO (double-jeopardy) debate as a tiny creature entering a square.
I personally don't care what the end result is, but as written, the OP will continue to have issues with PFS GMs because it is not written the way you and he are reading it.
Rory, then we are in agreement, it could work that way as written. Unfortunately, the debate regarding double-AoOs will then happen. Expect that debate to rage. :)
CampinCarl9127, Yes, the rules pretty clearly indicate that 5' steps are a form of movement.
BigNorseWolf, Specific does not have to call out every other rule to contradict it. It just must actually contradict something.
In this case we have:
AoO for movement (assuming it is not a special AoO, which appears to be the direction some are heading in).
AoO for movement is negated.
Where is the contradiction negating the negation? An example of such a contradiction can be seen in the ability Unexpected Strike.
BigNorseWolf, perhaps your link was broken but post #85 does not in any way show how the archetype does not work. In fact, it is the post I was responding to when I asked for you to show me the post.
Do you have a different post in mind?
Edited for more point and slightly less grarg while trying to get the point across.
Defaulting to epistemic nihilism for every position but your own does not foster conversation.
Declaring that an argument is insufficient without engaging it, or showing whats wrong with it is not engaging in a conversation. You can always say "mot proven", to anyone, about any argument.
If you need something 2 sentences long with a VS between them , followed by a sentence explaining the contradiction, saying can you bold the contradiction part seriously undermines your credibility.
Good day.