Attack of Opportunity with a Whip?

[Gulthor]

Tormsskull wrote:

To the OP, since you said it is valuable for people to say "I wouldn't allow it in my game," count me in that group.

+1

Attempting to argue this kind of ridiculous and obnoxious rules-lawyering would get you kicked out of the game at our table.

You agree that there's not even a question that it's RAI that you can't do it, so I don't know what you're even trying to prove, here. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. You must be keenly aware that if you manage to attract a Developer here, they're only going to shut you down.

Tale the feat if you want to do it.

[Imbicatus]

Look at the snap shot feat. Look at the normal line.

Shap Shot wrote:

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

This feat sets precedent that If you don't have a specific feat to threaten with a weapon that doesn't threaten you cannot make an AoO with that weapon.

[Baval]

Gulthor wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

To the OP, since you said it is valuable for people to say "I wouldn't allow it in my game," count me in that group.

+1

Attempting to argue this kind of ridiculous and obnoxious rules-lawyering would get you kicked out of the game at our table.

You agree that there's not even a question that it's RAI that you can't do it, so I don't know what you're even trying to prove, here. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. You must be keenly aware that if you manage to attract a Developer here, they're only going to shut you down.

Tale the feat if you want to do it.

I would welcome a developer to comment on this and make a clear ruling, since that would make an actual clear ruling.

And I should rephrase, in my mind it would make a lot of sense to agree with the RAI that is put out here, but I also find the lack of clear wording stating as such in any version of the rules, when the notion im forwarding here existed back in 3.5, tp be suspicious. There are numerous simple and easy revisions to the AoO rules that would close this loophole, and they are all suspiciously absent. The whip could say it cant be used to make an AoO instead of just it cant threaten. The rules for making an AoO could say you must attack with a weapon you threaten with instead of just saying you can make a melee attack.

And no, threaten does more than just allow AoOs, its also for flanking and probably other things. You can believe im trolling if you want, and i value your input that you wouldnt allow this ruling at your table, but im going to continue to defend against the same argument over and over until someone can come up with one that doesnt require leaps of logic no matter how reasonable they might seem.

Its not a feat, its four feats. Three of which I already have the effects of from my class but still am forced to take.

Imbicatus wrote:

Look at the snap shot feat. Look at the normal line.

Shap Shot wrote:

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

This feat sets precedent that If you don't have a specific feat to threaten with a weapon that doesn't threaten you cannot make an AoO with that weapon.

This does the exact opposite actually. It says that you threaten no squares AND can make no AoOs with that weapon. If they were synonymous then writing both out would not be required. I dont have to say "my clothes are wet and covered in water"

[Baval]

Note also that there are ways to get threatened squares completely independent of what weapon youre using.

[Baval]

thaX wrote:

I would still say that you can only do the AoO with a weapon that threatens. The Whip is an exception on what you can do with it for a great many rules, this is one weapon that needs expertise to be able to use in a snap instant.

This is also the same with wielding a reach weapon vs. armor spikes. You can't use the Armor Spikes when the AoO is provoked from out of their reach and you can't use the reach weapon if it can't hit from the provoking square. (meaning an adjacent square to the character)

When you are able to make AoO's with the whip, you are not provoking with it anyway.

Are you trying to trip with an AoO with the Whip? You need the feats to be able to do that.

Im not trying to trip with it no though that is an option (you dont need feats to do it either just feats to not provoke when you do)

Its not the same as trying to attack adjacent with a reach weapon because the reach weapon cannot attack adjacent, the whip can. Note also that the armor spikes in that example are only required to actually make the attack, as a reach weapon threatens adjacent it simply cant actually attack adjacent.

[thaX]

My character that has a whip took a trait to give her a bite attack. She has, thus far, surprised a couple of enemies with an AoO with her Bite. At no time did I even think about using the Whip, as it was not what I was threatening with.

The point with Snap Shot is that, with that feat, you now can threaten with the bow, where normally you would not.

Let me fix that last quote...

baval wrote:

It says that you threaten no squares AND (because of that) can make no AoOs with that weapon.

I think the Core Rulebook is big enough as it is, I really don't want it to be written in Legalize.

Edit... Ninja post...

You need feats to threaten with the Whip, thus use the AoO's with it to trip instead of attack. That was my point. The great thing is if you miss the attempt by more than five, you can drop the whip instead of going prone.

Whip Mastery can enable the character to use the Whip against adjacent targets without provoking, Improved Whip Mastery has the Whip threaten out to 10'.

[Baval]

thaX wrote:

My character that has a whip took a trait to give her a bite attack. She has, thus far, surprised a couple of enemies with an AoO with her Bite. At no time did I even think about using the Whip, as it was not what I was threatening with.

The point with Snap Shot is that, with that feat, you now can threaten with the bow, where normally you would not.

Let me fix that last quote...

baval wrote:

It says that you threaten no squares AND (because of that) can make no AoOs with that weapon.

I think the Core Rulebook is big enough as it is, I really don't want it to be written in Legalize.

Edit... Ninja post...

You need feats to threaten with the Whip, thus use the AoO's with it to trip instead of attack. That was my point. The great thing is if you miss the attempt by more than five, you can drop the whip instead of going prone.

Whip Mastery can enable the character to use the Whip against adjacent targets without provoking, Improved Whip Mastery has the Whip threaten out to 10'.

Once again though youre combining threatening with actually making the attack, when the rules dont do so.

Let me give you a (psuedo) real world example. In Dark Souls 2 they have whips, and if an enemy charges you it is nearly impossible to get an attack off in time and it likely wont stagger, thus you dont threaten them. If you have a dagger in your off hand, you can swing that at them which will stagger them and is fast enough. Most enemies wont let you hit them with the dagger if you make it that obvious though, they will dodge roll to avoid it. In doing so though they allow you to hit them with the whip when theyre vulnerable.

In the above example, you threaten with the dagger but hit with the whip

Also, changing my quote and what the book actually says is very dishonest. It does not say "because of that"

[thaX]

It is the inference of what the weapon is able or not able to do. The reason you can't make an AoO with is is because it does not threaten. I am just trying to make it clearer for you, not trying to "add" to the rules as you infer.

Fainting with the Dagger is not the same, in this game, as being able to use a non-threatening weapon to hit an AoO with.

Combining isn't exactly what is happening, it is more like one action is connected to the particular that allowed it to happen. (AoO is possible because of the weapon wielded)

I know you want to use the Whip, but that isn't how the rules are set up. That is why there are the feats that allow one to make those AoO's with the Whip. It is an overtaxed feat chain, made even more taxing with the additional want for the Scorpion Whip, since the character either needs a dip in Fighter or take another extra feat to be proficient in the Scorpion Whip. Unless you are one that gets feats (Combat or otherwise) more often than the regular progression, it really isn't worth it.

Dark Souls 2, Eh? Is that an old Playstation title, or a new Xbox retread?

[Baval]

I wouldn't call it old...it was released in March 2014

And id argue that youre not feinting with the dagger, as youre not trying to trick them with the dagger, you are legitimately using the dagger to threaten your opponent and then using their reaction to it to make an attack with your whip. Keep in mind this isnt bad AI making this trick work, this is actual human reaction. If you have a threatening object you can make attacks that enemies would otherwise not consider threatening.

Keep in mind too thats its often been stated that the attacks you make in a round are not the only ones that happen, but are the only ones where opportunities present themselves to actually cause damage. Your 20th level fighter isnt 5 times as fast as a 1st level one, he just sees and is able to respond to 5 times as many openings. So even though you dont actually make an attack with the dagger, you are still likely swinging it at your opponent and he is parrying it or dodging it.

I also disagree with that isnt how the rules are set up. No one has still given a clear rule that says that isnt how its set up, just a lot of ancedotal "I used a whip and I never did that" or speculative "well it makes the most sense if it works this way" stuff.

As the rules are set up, it does in fact work my way. Once again, making an AoO is simple.

You are threatening an enemy.
The enemy takes an action that provokes.
You make a melee attack.

I agree that the actions are connected, but theyre not fused anymore than if someone has the feat Seize the Moment which allows you to AoO when they crit. They dont provoke an AoO, you just get one. Its their weapon that caused the AoO, do you have to take it from them to get the attack? And if not, would you be able to make said AoO with a whip, since the feat completely skips over the part requiring you to threaten and the enemy to provoke?

You can argue that it would make the most sense to attack with the weapon that allowed you to threaten all you want, but the rules dont say you have to. Just that you make a melee attack.

[Imbicatus]

Okay, let's look at seize the moment.

Seize the Moment (Combat, Teamwork) wrote:

You and your allies are poised to pounce whenever one of you scores a telling blow.

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Critical.
Benefit: When an ally who also has this feat confirms a critical hit against an opponent that you also threaten, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.

Even with the feat, You must threaten the target in order to take the AoO. It has been constantly pointed out that AoOs are linked to threatening the target. If you do not threaten, you cannot make an AoO.

[Baval]

Imbicatus wrote:

Okay, let's look at seize the moment.

Seize the Moment (Combat, Teamwork) wrote:

You and your allies are poised to pounce whenever one of you scores a telling blow.

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Critical.
Benefit: When an ally who also has this feat confirms a critical hit against an opponent that you also threaten, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.

Even with the feat, You must threaten the target in order to take the AoO. It has been constantly pointed out that AoOs are linked to threatening the target. If you do not threaten, you cannot make an AoO.

Youre correct, I missed that it said which I threaten. However this still doesnt change the reasoning. I can still threaten them with my dagger.

Threatening is still something a character does, not a weapon. A weapon gives you the ability to threaten, but it doesn't actually threaten. Threatening and actually making the attack are not connected.

[Baval]

Ah hah, found what is pretty much proof positive of my thinking in my opinion.

Improved Unarmed strike does not allow your fists to count as weapons or to make attacks of opportunity, it just allows you to count as armed even when unarmed. This means that when you have it you threaten out to the range you can make a melee attack (5 feet with no weapon) but you dont actually have a weapon that threatens. Yet you can still make an AoO with your fists.

This proves that threatening and making the attacks are not connected. IUS does not make your fists a weapon, it merely lets you count as armed and thus have a threatening "aura". Same with having a Whip and a Dagger.

[Gisher]

Baval wrote:

Ah hah, found what is pretty much proof positive of my thinking in my opinion.

Improved Unarmed strike does not allow your fists to count as weapons or to make attacks of opportunity, it just allows you to count as armed even when unarmed. This means that when you have it you threaten out to the range you can make a melee attack (5 feet with no weapon) but you dont actually have a weapon that threatens. Yet you can still make an AoO with your fists.

This proves that threatening and making the attacks are not connected. IUS does not make your fists a weapon, it merely lets you count as armed and thus have a threatening "aura". Same with having a Whip and a Dagger.

Unarmed Strike is a weapon. It is listed on the weapon tables in both the CRB and UE.

[Imbicatus]

Gisher wrote:

Baval wrote:

Ah hah, found what is pretty much proof positive of my thinking in my opinion.

Improved Unarmed strike does not allow your fists to count as weapons or to make attacks of opportunity, it just allows you to count as armed even when unarmed. This means that when you have it you threaten out to the range you can make a melee attack (5 feet with no weapon) but you dont actually have a weapon that threatens. Yet you can still make an AoO with your fists.

This proves that threatening and making the attacks are not connected. IUS does not make your fists a weapon, it merely lets you count as armed and thus have a threatening "aura". Same with having a Whip and a Dagger.

Unarmed Strike is a weapon. It is listed on the weapon tables in both the CRB and UE.

Yes. The only reason it doesn't threaten is because there are special rules in the combat chapter that prevent it, as there are special rules in the whip description that prevents them from threatening.

[DM_Blake]

Baval,

Haven't you taken this as far as it can go?

Everyone is sure what the rules say. Everyone is sure what the rules assume. You are, by your own admission, exploiting a loophole in those rules. A loophole we (including you) are all sure was unintended.

You've made your point; the developers goofed. You found their goof. Go exploit away. Nobody will stop you - except any GM with a shred of common sense, but even he may allow it since whips are pretty weak as far as weapons go. In any case, allowing a known exploit to overcome the shortcomings of whips is different than assuming the loophole was intended by the developers.

[Baval]

DM_Blake wrote:

Baval,

Haven't you taken this as far as it can go?

Everyone is sure what the rules say. Everyone is sure what the rules assume. You are, by your own admission, exploiting a loophole in those rules. A loophole we (including you) are all sure was unintended.

You've made your point; the developers goofed. You found their goof. Go exploit away. Nobody will stop you - except any GM with a shred of common sense, but even he may allow it since whips are pretty weak as far as weapons go. In any case, allowing a known exploit to overcome the shortcomings of whips is different than assuming the loophole was intended by the developers.

Actually after arguing this all this time and reading up case after case where this way of thinking makes sense, and finding absolutely nothing to support the "common sense" interpretation, ive changed my mind on the matter.

So I am now actually defending this as the intended way to do it rather than an interesting loophole, and I still havent heard anyone make any point beyond "common sense". I have also pointed out a "common sense" explanation for the way i believe it could work, and there are other rulings for other things that go against "common sense"

For example, did you know it is impossible to wield a Bastard Sword in one hand if youre proficient in martial weapons but not in it? Even through any other one handed exotic weapon could be wielded in one hand with a -4 penalty, and it logically follows that so could the Bastard Sword, the official ruling is you MUST wield it in two hands if youre not proficient.

Or how about the Titan Mauler, who after level 8-ish has completely negated the penalty for wielding a weapon one size category larger than him, but continues to lower the penalty throughout the class. Surely thats so that he can wield even larger weapons with lesser or no penalty? Nope, official ruling is he cant wield a weapon more than one size category larger, making the continued scaling of the weapon completely pointless.

There are real world examples too, but I wont go into them in order to avoid a different hostile discussion.

Point is, just because you think something is "common sense" and a bunch of people agree, that doesnt mean its true.

[Baval]

Imbicatus wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Baval wrote:

Ah hah, found what is pretty much proof positive of my thinking in my opinion.

Improved Unarmed strike does not allow your fists to count as weapons or to make attacks of opportunity, it just allows you to count as armed even when unarmed. This means that when you have it you threaten out to the range you can make a melee attack (5 feet with no weapon) but you dont actually have a weapon that threatens. Yet you can still make an AoO with your fists.

This proves that threatening and making the attacks are not connected. IUS does not make your fists a weapon, it merely lets you count as armed and thus have a threatening "aura". Same with having a Whip and a Dagger.

Unarmed Strike is a weapon. It is listed on the weapon tables in both the CRB and UE.

Yes. The only reason it doesn't threaten is because there are special rules in the combat chapter that prevent it, as there are special rules in the whip description that prevents them from threatening.

Correction, the whip has special rules preventing you from threatening into the area which you can make an attack. Keyword being you, not it.

You still have not connected threatening with the attack of opportunity except as what triggers it, not what can make it.

[thaX]

I quote from a movie...

"...how can you be so obtuse?"
"What did you call me? Your forgetting yourself, boy!"
"Obtuse. Is it on purpose?"

You threaten with a weapon, implement, or your monk skill at Kung Fu Flurry. You would use said weapon, implement or Kung Fu to effect the AoO. Not the Whip that does not threaten.

The RAI is the intrinsic connection between weapon and how it interacts with Combat. The Whip, Unarmed attacks and a couple of other weapons have exceptions to the normal rules, they do not threaten when other weapons otherwise would. The Whip also does Non-Lethal damage and can not harm those wearing basic armor. A Monk treats his Unarmed attacks as being Armed, otherwise Unarmed attacks are minimal damage and provokes when used against an armed opponent.

If you want to make AoO's with a Whip, get the Feats.

If you don't want to get the feats, then sell the Whip and get something that actually threatens.

"Well, it doesn't say a can't, so I should be able to..." is not a valid rules interpretation. You look at the rules to see what you can do and how you can do it. The overall RAW discussions need to include RAI and how other aspects of the game interact with those rules. To discount other parallels and focus on one particular, such as a specific sentence or phrase, is a narrow view of the game in general.

Me and the other posters have given you various reasoning and examples of why you can not use a whip for AoO's that were provoked by another implement/weapon (such as a dagger). If you don't want to believe the conclusion that is against your own wants, why ask in the first place?

This is my last post on this. I ask that this thread be locked.

[JohnF]

thaX wrote:

This is my last post on this. I ask that this thread be locked.

+1

[Baval]

thaX wrote:

I quote from a movie...

"...how can you be so obtuse?"
"What did you call me? Your forgetting yourself, boy!"
"Obtuse. Is it on purpose?"

You threaten with a weapon, implement, or your monk skill at Kung Fu Flurry. You would use said weapon, implement or Kung Fu to effect the AoO. Not the Whip that does not threaten.

The RAI is the intrinsic connection between weapon and how it interacts with Combat. The Whip, Unarmed attacks and a couple of other weapons have exceptions to the normal rules, they do not threaten when other weapons otherwise would. The Whip also does Non-Lethal damage and can not harm those wearing basic armor. A Monk treats his Unarmed attacks as being Armed, otherwise Unarmed attacks are minimal damage and provokes when used against an armed opponent.

If you want to make AoO's with a Whip, get the Feats.

If you don't want to get the feats, then sell the Whip and get something that actually threatens.

"Well, it doesn't say a can't, so I should be able to..." is not a valid rules interpretation. You look at the rules to see what you can do and how you can do it. The overall RAW discussions need to include RAI and how other aspects of the game interact with those rules. To discount other parallels and focus on one particular, such as a specific sentence or phrase, is a narrow view of the game in general.

Me and the other posters have given you various reasoning and examples of why you can not use a whip for AoO's that were provoked by another implement/weapon (such as a dagger). If you don't want to believe the conclusion that is against your own wants, why ask in the first place?

This is my last post on this. I ask that this thread be locked.

No, you guys keep giving me the same reasoning over and over again, which is "well obviously thats not how it works"

That is not acceptable logic. If you can bring something actually supportable other than "I think it definitely doesnt work that way" then I would concede.

The other thing you keep telling me is my argument is "the rules dont say I cant" when in fact my argument is "the rules very specifically allow it, and the wording is consistent across all examples."

If there was even one example ANYWHERE in all of both 3.5 and Pathfinder of it ever saying you had to make the attack of opportunity with the weapon that threatens, this would be over, but in all this time it has never been written that way. The threaten and the attack have always been distinctly separate. As I said earlier, this was even considered a valid line of thinking in 3.5, and I gave a clear example of how a weapon which is not threatening can be used to attack an opponent who is threatened by another weapon you are using. A real actual human example of the mechanics in action.

So to answer your question, Im not accepting your answers because your answers are ignoring my question and straw manning my arguments. Im not being obtuse, I understand your argument clearly, I simply do not agree with the logic of "I think its so, and a lot of people agree, so it must be". Asking a thread to be closed because you dont agree with the person is quite immature of you. If you have nothing else to say then by all means you can stop posting.

[DM_Blake]

You got it right, Baval. You are the only person who figured out what the devs wanted all along; all the rest of us are wrong. I see it clearly now. The Paizo discussion went something like this:

JB: Hey, guys, I have an idea. Why not let people make AoOs with weapons that don't threaten?
JJ: Are you sure that makes sense?
JB: Of course it does. As long as you threaten with anything, you can make an AoO with anything else, even if it doesn't threaten or even can't possibly thraten.
SKR: So, you mean my orc with the bite attack can threaten an adjacent square with his bite and still use his longspear to make an AoO?
JB: Yeah, man, it's awesome!
EC: So if I'm holding a longspear and someone 10' away provokes, I can kick them as my AoO?
JB: Yep. Pretty cool, right?
MC: So I can wear armor spikes and use a whip to make an AoO provoked by someone adjacent to my spiked armor?
JB: Exactly! See how cool it is?
JJ: I don't know. It doesn't seem to make sense to me.
SKR: Or to me.
MC: Yeah, me either. I think a weapon that is used to make an AoO should be the one that threatens.
EC: I'm with the rest, JB, I don't think it works.
JB: No. I like it. My game, my book, my rule of cool!
MC: *sighs* I guess I'll go edit the AoO section to add this rule then.
JB: No, wait. There's no point in writing this rule. Waste of space. Gotta watch our word count. Just call it a deliberate loophole that lets them play the way I wanted all along. Saves space that way.
SKR: You sure that's a good idea? What if they never figure it out?
JB: No way. This rule is soooooooo waaaaaay obvious, I'm sure some players will figure it out and post about it on our website. Probably won't even take 7 days before they figure it out.
SKR: More like 7 years.
EC: And then it will be just one super-genius, way smarter than all the rest.
JJ: But nobody will believe him.
MC: Because it doesn't make sense.
JB: Hush. You wait. This rule will take gaming by storm...

So, Paval. You are the guy JB has been waiting for. You're the chosen one.

You win the internets.

[Baval]

@DM_Blake sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

You act like im the only person who sees it this way. Like I said, it was an accepted idea in 3.5 and in this thread Lune agreed with me.

If all you have left is ad hominem attacks then please move along. This is the second time you've resorted to them in disagreements we've had.

And nice strawman with the longspear thing in there. Already covered that one though.

Oh, and note that the conversation would actually go something like:

"Our rules don't specify that you have to make an AoO with a weapon that can threaten, we should probably mention that huh? Ill just add that to the section of what an "Attack of Opportunity is, right now it just says any old melee attack"

"Nah, 'with a weapon that threatens' would put us 5 words over count, leave it out of this and every future printing."

[fretgod99]

Baval wrote:

Gulthor wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

To the OP, since you said it is valuable for people to say "I wouldn't allow it in my game," count me in that group.

+1

Attempting to argue this kind of ridiculous and obnoxious rules-lawyering would get you kicked out of the game at our table.

You agree that there's not even a question that it's RAI that you can't do it, so I don't know what you're even trying to prove, here. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. You must be keenly aware that if you manage to attract a Developer here, they're only going to shut you down.

Tale the feat if you want to do it.

I would welcome a developer to comment on this and make a clear ruling, since that would make an actual clear ruling.

That generally doesn't happen when there's no real confusion as to how the rule works, though.

[fretgod99]

Baval wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

So is the debate then basically about the question, "Even though I can't normally make an AoO with a whip, where is the rule saying I can't make an AoO with a whip if I'm holding a dagger in my other hand?"

Isn't this basically the same argument as, "Why can't I make an AoO with my longbow if I have Improved Unarmed Strike?"

You can't because, even if the rules don't explicitly state it, the rules pretty clearly imply that you make AoO with weapons that you are currently threatening with. Not all rules are explicit. Not all corner cases can be covered. This is one of those areas where the game designers have left it to us to figure out how things are supposed to work. But, they left us a pretty good map to get from A to B. There really isn't any controversy here - if you can't make an AoO with a weapon when you're wielding that weapon alone, why would one think that holding a different weapon at the same time would allow you to make an AoO with the first one?

No, the question is "even though i cant normally threaten with my whip, can i make an AoO with it if i threaten through other means."

There is nothing saying you cant make an AoO with a whip, only that you dont threaten. Reading rules saying "you cant AoO with a whip" would make it clear.

people keep making the logic leap that cant threaten=cant AoO. They are in fact two seperate steps of the AoO process. So that line of reasoning wont work. If they wanted to say it couldn't AoO, they would have made it clear like they did with ranged weapons and unarmed strikes.

That's ... the same question.

"I can't normally make an AoO with a whip. If I'm holding another weapon, can I make an AoO with my whip."

Regardless, I'd be interested to see where there was a ruling in 3.5 on this. Because I don't believe any 3.5 group I ever played with ruled it this way.

[Baval]

@fretgod99

this is the thread i got the idea from to begin with

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8991.0

As Ive said, the key difference between your wording and mine is youre combining threaten with making an AoO, when the rules dont. The whip says it doesnt threaten, but it doesnt say it cant make an AoO

[fretgod99]

That thread hardly supports your contention that not only is this rules legal in 3.5 (even posters in that thread seemed dubious of the idea) but that the concept is generally "considered a valid line of thinking".

Threatening and AoO are not one and the same. But one cannot make an AoO without threatening.

Ordinarily, while wielding only a whip you are not threatening. Thus, you cannot make an AoO. The question is whether wielding a separate weapon allows you to now make an AoO with a whip, a weapon you ordinarily wouldn't be able to do that with.

So again, it's the same question. It's semantics at this point, but it is the same question.

"Does wielding a dagger let me make AoO with my whip?" That's what you're after.

I have yet to see where this was a generally accepted and legal concept in 3.5, let alone PF.

[Baval]

fretgod99 wrote:

That thread hardly supports your contention that not only is this rules legal in 3.5 (even posters in that thread seemed dubious of the idea) but that the concept is generally "considered a valid line of thinking".

Threatening and AoO are not one and the same. But one cannot make an AoO without threatening.

Ordinarily, while wielding only a whip you are not threatening. Thus, you cannot make an AoO. The question is whether wielding a separate weapon allows you to now make an AoO with a whip, a weapon you ordinarily wouldn't be able to do that with.

So again, it's the same question. It's semantics at this point, but it is the same question.

"Does wielding a dagger let me make AoO with my whip?" That's what you're after.

I have yet to see where this was a generally accepted and legal concept in 3.5, let alone PF.

Actually, what people were dubious of in that thread was some people werent understanding that giving up all your AoOs for a ranged attack was not required by the feat. Youll see that other than the first response, everyone else is on board with the idea. With the exception of one person who shares the view of the majority in this thread: that threatening aura is tied directly to the weapon. He is in the minority of that thread as I am in this one.

Its not quite semantics, because if a whip had clear rules saying it could not be used to make an AoO or the AoO rules had clear rules saying you could not make one with a weapon that doesnt threaten then it would be a moot point. The very fact that it doesnt, and that a psuedo real world example can be brought forth to show how it is possible and realistic, makes it a subject of debate. Whether the majority believe it is settled is irrelevant: mob mentality does not dictate the truth.

As written, it works. You can argue if its intended, but it will always be speculative. The only person who can answer is likely Gary Gygax, and hes dead.

[Lune]

Even though my groups rule that you attack with the weapon you are threatening with I agree that it does not explicitly say this in the rules.

The rules state that the character threatens, not the weapon. Period.

Assuming that they mean that the weapon threatens on a rules forum is applying your own perspective on RAI. That is something that pretty much everyone here who is giving the opinion that the weapon threatens would normally say should not exist on a rules forum.

So what is the difference here? I admit I may have missed something in the rules stating which weapon you have to attack with when you make an AoO. So please, point out the rules that I am missing.

GM_Blake: Please do not group me in with you. I for one think that we could nothing but benefit from clarity on the topic.

I'm not going to attack someone based on their opinion of something that is not explicit within the rules by making a fake mocking dialog between Devs that is a clear misrepresentation of the question asked here. I'm not sure in what world you think that behavior is ok. Anyone should expect to come to these boards to ask a question and not get mocked for asking it.

[DM_Blake]

Lune wrote:

GM_Blake: Please do not group me in with you. I for one think that we could nothing but benefit from clarity on the topic.

I don't recall grouping you with anyone. If I did, it was purely accidental.

Lune wrote:

I'm not going to attack someone based on their opinion of something that is not explicit within the rules by making a fake mocking dialog between Devs that is a clear misrepresentation of the question asked here. I'm not sure in what world you think that behavior is ok. Anyone should expect to come to these boards to ask a question and not get mocked for asking it.

I didn't attack anyone. I conceded the point. Baval figured out the grand secret plan and enlightened all of us. I just shed light on how that might have come to be.

Anyone can come to these boards and ask a question. I've never mocked anyone for asking a question.

However, asking a question, getting several answers, disregarding the answers, insisting on a conflicting viewpoint that nobody else seems to share, being told why that is wrong, ignoring that and insisting on it anyway, arguing it repeatedly, and even stating the fact the he knows it is an exploit all along, yet continuing to barge down this path - well, that goes a bit beyond "asking a question" and is, perhaps, at least to me, somewhat mockable. YMMV.

[Baval]

I still haven't seen the part where you told me why I'm wrong other than "I don't think it works that way"

Maybe you could repeat it, since its so obvious.

Remember, just saying "its obvious" doesn't work, you've tried that.

So yeah, waiting you to mention any actual point that makes your case besides "obviously you're wrong, duh" or "all these guys think you're wrong too"

I did also mention that I changed my mind on whether it was an exploit. When I came into this thread, I assumed I was missing something or the wording would be more ambiguous, but I don't like to let my presumptions stop me from changing my mind based on evidence.

I do find it humorous you telling the guy who agrees with me that nobody seems to agree with me though.

[DM_Blake]

Except he doesn't actually agree with you. His group plays it this way, sure, but he's said that the rules don't state it this way and he believes it's not the RAI.

In other words, it's a house rule at his table. All he agrees with is the same thing that I've agreed with - it's not explicitly disallowed by the rules but it's also fairly obviously not RAI.

The rules explicitly that you do not threaten with a whip, then forcing that rule through an exploitative loophole where you do threaten with something else and make your AoO with the non-threatening whip is clearly not what Paizo was thinking when they wrote the rules.

Unless my imaginary dialogue above actually happened.

I give them more credit than that.

Occam's Razor is suggesting that you have simply found an exploit they didn't think of, a possibility far, far simpler than that one that suggests the DID think of this weird corner case, liked it, wanted it to be used, but never actually created or wrote any rules to tell us that this is what they wanted.

I'm not going to convince you. You've made up your mind to defend this exploit until the end of time. You're welcome to it.

[Baval]

Lune wrote:

Even though my groups rule that you attack with the weapon you are threatening with I agree that it does not explicitly say this in the rules.

The rules state that the character threatens, not the weapon. Period.

Assuming that they mean that the weapon threatens on a rules forum is applying your own perspective on RAI.

Um, actually he said literally the exact opposite.

Once again you fall back to "I dont think thats what Paizo intended". Your opinion is not fact no matter how many times you repeat it, not that its Paizos rules anyway. The AoO rules are a direct lift from 3.5.

Occams Razor would in fact dictate we take the simplest solution, which is that the rules are written correctly and dont need to be interpreted. Luckily for you Occams Razor is often false.

I never make my mind up on anything. I simply still havent been given any actual evidence to support the opposition. Ill give you credit though, even though you used a logical fallacy (and incorrectly too), you did at least try to come up with something new.

[thaX]

I will quote myself.

thaX wrote:

"Well, it doesn't say a can't, so I should be able to..." is not a valid rules interpretation. You look at the rules to see what you can do and how you can do it. The overall RAW discussions need to include RAI and how other aspects of the game interact with those rules. To discount other parallels and focus on one particular, such as a specific sentence or phrase, is a narrow view of the game in general.

Please. Lock. This. Thread.

[Lune]

The rules state that the character threatens, not the weapon. Period.

Occam's razor that. Nice holier than thou attitude though. Especially since I haven't addressed you once... and I am among your only allies in this thread. But whatever, go ahead and alienate me I guess?

What good would locking the thread do? Is it your goal to make people not be able to discuss things? You do realize that anyone could just make another thread, right?...

[thaX]

If me, I was responding to Baval. I know your playing devil's advocate, but every other poster has seen that the question and answer is obvious and clear. That it doesn't specifically state it in a long, legalize document four pages long is not really relevant.

basically, stating it once again, you hit the provoked Attack of Opportunity (AoO) with the threatening weapon. It doesn't matter what else you have wielded, on, or able to use, the character only hits with the weapon(s) that they threaten that square with.

That one guy's razor or some other imperium aside, I just tire of repeating myself only to be shunted aside as "making up the rules" or not "addressing the missing and forgotten particular" when I and other have explained otherwise.

I requested that the thread be locked because there is nothing new being learned and it is only a back and forth of yes/no responses that offers little in resolution to the issue at hand.

I suspect one of three things that is wanted.

• 1- a whip attack that provoke from the attacked to cause a feat chain to fire (3.5 spiked chain endless attacks)
• 2- trip attempts with AoO's (which can be done with feat(s))
• Scorpion Whip shenanigans. (performance?)

Look at the quote above. A double negative to equal yes is not the way to interpret rules text. One should looks at the rules to see what you can do, not what you can't.

[Gisher]

thaX wrote:

... I requested that the thread be locked because there is nothing new being learned and it is only a back and forth of yes/no responses that offers little in resolution to the issue at hand. ...

So you posted after you asked for the thread to be locked. I have to say that I find this confusing. Did you think that your post helped progress the discussion? If so then your premise for locking the thread was false. If not then you were perpetuating the behavior that you wanted others to end.

[thaX]

Was responding to Lune and clarifying my position. Nothing new, move along... move along...

[Baval]

Lune wrote:

The rules state that the character threatens, not the weapon. Period.

Occam's razor that. Nice holier than thou attitude though. Especially since I haven't addressed you once... and I am among your only allies in this thread. But whatever, go ahead and alienate me I guess?

What good would locking the thread do? Is it your goal to make people not be able to discuss things? You do realize that anyone could just make another thread, right?...

Huh? I didn't mean to alienate you and I'm not sure what I said to make you think that...

I quoted you to show dm Blake you said the opposite of what he said you'd said, so maybe that's the confusion. My entire post was directed at him

[Byakko]

Guys, the rules are far from being logically complete and perfect. The devs have stated multiple times that they expect players and GMs to exercise reasonable interpretation and fill in the gaps in the rules with common sense.

While correcting the rules to clarify this issue might only take a few lines, there are millions of similar corner cases which could likewise use clarification. It's simply not reasonable to add thousands of pages to the rules to cover these outlying cases.

Part of being a good GM is handling these cases and making rulings on things which aren't handled, or handled poorly, in the text.

Thus, while the rules may technically permit you to mix and match AoO opportunities with wielded weapons of your choice, it's also heavily implied that you should make the attack with one of the weapons which threatened, and I enforce this at tables I run. While this may be an appeal to sanity and RAI, I don't feel this is an unreasonable thing to do.

[DM_Blake]

I'm going to make a new character. He's going to be big. Very big. With a very big weapon. He'll focus all his feats on things to make him extra deadly with attacks of opportunity. And I'll name him "You". Yep, that's his name. You.

Then, every time an enemy provokes an AoO from ANYBODY in the group and the GM tells that player that he can make an AoO, he'll point at me and say "Well, the rules say 'You can make an attack of opportunity' so I'm going to follow the letter of the rules and let You make the AoO..."

So every time anybody in my group, or any ally anywhere, actually, gets to make an AoO, my character will do it for him. Because the rules say so.

Pretty sure there's nothing a GM can do to stop me. I mean, to stop You...

[Byakko]

DM_Blake:
Homonyms. They are words that are spelled and pronounced the same but are actually distinct words. In this case, the "You" character you presented and the more common word "You" are distinct. Determining which is being used any given instance is typically determined by context, although there are naturally still some sentences which will result in ambiguity. In your example, it's pretty obvious which "You" is being referred to in the quoted sentence.

Anyway, I know you were just trying to point out that rules can be ambiguous, but I felt like adding this for fun. ;)

[Baval]

@Byakko

I agree your logic makes sense, I simply disagree that my logic doesnt make sense. I gave an example of how it could and does. I dont believe its implied that you should besides what a lot of people would call common sense.

@everyone
I am not bumping this thread or anything. If people wanted this conversation to die they can simply stop posting in it. I will continue to talk reasonably with anyone who does. My opinion wont effect your game at the end of the day.