|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread from last year posed a meaningful question, but it a) never saw a conclusive end, and b) was started before the FAQ entry earlier this year, which I'll paste here:
Given that, my current understanding is that no application of acrobatics (neither acrobatics vs CMD nor acrobatics vs CMD+5) can circumvent the AoO provoked by a tiny (or smaller) creature entering the space of larger creature. Further, since entering the larger creature's space is decidedly different from moving through the larger creature's threatened area, the Mobility feat (which addresses only the latter) does not apply. In the same vein, the bonuses granted by the Underfoot feat do not apply to an AoO provoked by entering a larger creature's space.
Similarly, the five-foot step granted by the Sidestep feat provokes an AoO if used to enter a larger creature's space, regardless of the feat's text.
Meanwhile, small+ creatures can still move into, through, and out of an opponent's space (the size of the opponent being irrelevant) without provoking any attacks of opportunity by succeeding at an acrobatics check against the opponent's CMD+5.
Is my understanding correct?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think you are reading more into the answer than is there.
A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.
Move through a threatened area
Move through an enemy’s space
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
The FAQ answered the very specific question and explains it in detail.
----.AT.
----
A is tiny and enters T's space. The rules say there are two things that provoke an attack of opportunity (leaving a threatened and entering opponent space.) The FAQ makes it clear that two FAQ are not provoked, but if you are exempt to one (such as taking a 5 ftp step) that doesn't make you exempt to the other (such as entering the opponent square) unless the ability mentions entering the square (like Monkey Shine.)
So using the FAQ and the rules, I'll answer your other questions.
You may use a 5 ftp step to enter T's space (avoiding the "leaving threatened" AoO) and make an Acrobatics check vs CMD+5 (avoiding the "entering opponent space" AoO.)
Mobility doesn't help with the "entering opponent square" attack because it specific to the AoO from leaving a threatened square.
Underfoot RAI may or may not match some RAW interpretations. It provides two benefits:
- +4 dodge bonus on Acrobatics checks to move past opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity
- +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a larger opponent’s threatened area
The +4 wouldn't apply to entering an opponent space, as you are not moving past as much as into.
The +2 dodge would apply to both AoO from leaving threaten square and entering (as entering is moving "within"). This ruling will have table variance.
Sidestep only allows movement, so the "does not provoke" would follow the same as a 5ft step. In other words, if you used it to enter the opponent space, it would provoke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your understanding is correct. The rules for Tiny creatures came out in a weird spot because they don't follow all of the rules and abilities for tumbling past opponents. It will basically always be an AoO, even with Acrobatics. There are some class features that negate it out there.
Why doesn't the acrobatics application of "Move through an enemy's space without provoking an attack of opportunity" count as "a more specific ability to avoid the attack of opportunity"?
I (mostly) agree with James analysis.
+2 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a larger opponent’s threatened area[/list] The +2 dodge would apply to both AoO from leaving threaten square and entering (as entering is moving "within"). This ruling will have table variance.
If this applies, then so does mobility. They both use the same wording.
...when you move out of or within a threatened area.
...when you move out of or within a larger opponent’s threatened area (this stacks with the +4 bonus provided by Mobility, for a total bonus of +6).
Underfoot has the additional restriction that your opponent must be larger, but then references mobility as something that basically works the same way it does.
I suspect the +4 dodge bonus to acro from underfoot should also apply. The acro roll to avoid an AoO allows moving both adjacent or through an opponent (at different DC's). In my opinion, it's a very narrow reading of the rules to say that "moving past" is different than "moving through" or "moving into". Certainly one could move through another persons space and we could still say that they moved past them. And if moving through someone is one form of moving past them, I find it rather arbitrary to say the moving into their space (and stopping) is sufficiently different than moving through them that you don't get the +4 bonus.
Of course, my preference for the FAQ answer would have been that the two AoO's mentioned are one and the same - it would have made things a lot simpler without further penalizing tiny characters who are already at a disadvantage because they need to be in your square to attack you. The enemy gets to make full attacks on you, 5' step away, then you get to eat an AoO on your turn if you want to engage them.
|
Your understanding is correct. The rules for Tiny creatures came out in a weird spot because they don't follow all of the rules and abilities for tumbling past opponents. It will basically always be an AoO, even with Acrobatics. There are some class features that negate it out there.Why doesn't the acrobatics application of "Move through an enemy's space without provoking an attack of opportunity" count as "a more specific ability to avoid the attack of opportunity"?
As Saldiven said, I believe that "moving through" and "moving into" are different things with different rules attached. Is this a fairly strict reading of the rules? Yes. Would I blink an eye if I was at another table and the GM let slide? Absolutely not. There is some room for interpretation here, and my strict interpretation is that it doesn't work.
If you allow it, be wary that using Acrobatics and then failing in this way stops you from entering their square at all. Kind of a risk there.
In my opinion, it's a very narrow reading of the rules to say that "moving past" is different than "moving through" or "moving into".I have to disagree. Moving by a character has one Acrobatics DC and moving through a character has a different Acrobatics DC, so they are both clearly meant to be different things. Moving into a character's space is also a clearly different thing that has a separate set of rules that apply.
That isn't a different rule anymore than attacking an AC of 10 is a different rule than attacking an AC of 11. Same rule, different target number.
Nor is it a different rule anymore than a perception check to "Find the average concealed door: DC 15" compared to "Find the average secret door: DC 20". The rule is make a perception check and beat this number.
Now it is entirely possible that the primary benefit of Underfoot
You receive a +4 dodge bonus on Acrobatics checks to move past opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so long as they are larger than you.
is not intended to help those characters that most need it... tiny characters that cannot even attack unless they are in your square. It wouldn't be the first feat that came out being nearly useless.
My general assumption though would be that characters should get the full benefits of a feat when not strictly prohibited by an explicit rule.
Mobility doesn't help with the "entering opponent square" attack because it specific to the AoO from leaving a threatened square.
I disagree on that point. for this reason from the faq
for the same reason that moving out of multiple of a creature’s threatened squares in the same move action doesn’t provoke two attacks of opportunity.
Its still a movement related attack of opportunity, not a separate provoking event. It just doesn't have the protection that a normal 5 foot step does. Mobility kicks in on movement related AoOs.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Mobility doesn't help with the "entering opponent square" attack because it specific to the AoO from leaving a threatened square.I disagree on that point. for this reason from the faq
for the same reason that moving out of multiple of a creature’s threatened squares in the same move action doesn’t provoke two attacks of opportunity.
Its still a movement related attack of opportunity, not a separate provoking event. It just doesn't have the protection that a normal 5 foot step does. Mobility kicks in on movement related AoOs.
Ok I can see that.
....you meant to do that didn't you? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
....you meant to do that didn't you? :)
Hereby declares James as banned from the internet for improper internet etiquette and behavior....
Acrobatics would allow it to enter without provoking. Staying? Am I forgetting some rule why it would need an acrobatics check to stay in the creatures square?
The acro check is the normal CMD + 5 for entering another creatures square. The rules don't say, but in this case I'd allow a failed roll to still allow the tiny creature to move into the square rather then ending its move like a failed acro would normally do.
It can be used with a 5' step at no additional penalty. Having your speed halved, or moving at half speed, does not prevent taking a 5' step. (e.g, it does not become a 2.5' step).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, a tiny creature seems to be able to move into and through another's square while provoking, but if they attempt to use acrobatics to negate the AoO, and fail, then they lose the move action. (I know you did mention this above, but just reiterating it.)
That would make the argument that the critter only needs to make the easier DC to move through a threatened square. That way they keep moving. That would solve that contradiction
I don't really like that solution. I think its better just to remember that the rules were written by medium creatures with 4 limbs and bilateral symmetry and night blindness. That's who the rules are usually talking about.
Note that the DC+5 check is to facilitate being allowed to move through a creature's square, but doesn't technically negate the AoO for entering an enemy's square. I don't know anyone who actually plays it this way, but I'm bringing it up to highlight some of the causes of the ambiguity.
Actually it does prevent it by the rules.
If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
The converse of that, is that a successful acro lets you move through the square and not provoke.
Additionally, the first sentence of the paragraph reads
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
An opponents space is still a threatened square that you are moving through.
Otherwise they would need to call out that any attempt to use acro to move through a creatures square provokes, regardless of the success or failure of the acro roll.
EDIT: One final bit of evidence. The table includes the following footnote
This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This penalty increases by +2 for each additional opponent avoided in one round.
If leaving one square and entering another are two separate things, can I cast Emergency Force Sphere in between?
:)
If leaving one square and entering another are two separate things, can I cast Emergency Force Sphere in between?
:)
Yes, but only if you have the ability to see the space between planes of existence.
C: making the acrobatics check
P: provoking and losing actionnot(C) -> P
does not logically imply
C -> not(P)
(btw, your statement wasn't actually a converse, however you still committed a logical fallacy: Denying the Antecedent)
By itself this gives only an inferred intent. Combined with the first sentence of the paragraph, and the footnote on the table, it gives clear RAW.
Additionally, the first sentence of the paragraph reads
An opponents space is still a threatened square that you are moving through.
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
I agree that acrobatics can negate attacks of opportunities from moving through threatened squares. However, it does not negate the attack of opportunity from moving into a creature's square.
How many AoO's can you take in squares you do not threaten? Acro lets you avoid AoO's for moving through threatened squares. If you are moving into an opponents square, are you moving? If you could take an AoO do you not, by definition, threaten the square?
So in order to have a logical argument against this you need to either:
1) Show that moving into another creatures square is not actually moving.
2) Show that moving into another creatures square is not moving through a threatened square.
3) Show that moving into another creatures square does not actually provoke an AoO (which is of course self-defeating).
If you read the FAQ answer you'll note that the AoO from entering a creatures square is, again, re-iterated as an AoO due to movement.
I don't believe an explanatory footnote overrules the actual rules text which give a more specific explanation of when the skill applies.Otherwise they would need to call out that any attempt to use acro to move through a creatures square provokes, regardless of the success or failure of the acro roll.
EDIT: One final bit of evidence. The table includes the following footnote
This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This penalty increases by +2 for each additional opponent avoided in one round.
In an of itself, it is not. But given that the rules already state this, it is simply a re-affirmation of how this works.
Unlike James though, you are not banned from the internet, since you continued to make claims contrary to clear evidence against you :). A most proper internet response.
But its only one provoking event.
If "entering a creatures square" is what provokes the attack of opportunity a tiny creature entering another creatures square would provoke 2 attacks of opportunity, but they don't. Its just the one, and it seems to be movement related.
Oh, it's definitely movement related, as clarified by the FAQ. However, these are two different movement related events which can triggers an AoO. Acrobatics can be used to prevent one of them but not the other. This is similar to how 5' stepping into a foe's square still provokes despite 5' steps normally not provoking.
Can you please point out in the acrobatics rules where it separates acro preventing AoO's from moving through adjacent squares vs moving through enemy squares? I'm not seeing that separation called out. The entire paragraph is a single thought on "how to move through threatened squares without provoking an AoO".
All acro cares about is that the AoO would be generated from movement. There is no hidden unwritten rules about movement of type 1 and movement of type 2 (ok, there might be, unwritten rules are like that, you just don't know what they are till the developers tell you...) and acro only applies to type 1 movement.
The footnote again on the table supports what the rules are telling us. The footnote is for the entire column, and not only for areas adjacent to an opponent.
3A)
You're getting your logic mixed up again. You can't take an AoO unless you threaten a square. This doesn't mean that if you threaten a square and take an AoO that the AoO was caused by "movement through a threatened square". The AoO could have been triggered by something else and you're simply allowed to take the attack because you threaten the square.
(I know this isn't exactly what you said, but pretty sure you were implying it)
I'm quite clear on how AoO's as a result of movement work. You misunderstood what I'm saying if you think I said all AoO's are a result of movement. There are some move actions (retrieving an item) that provoke, which acro could not prevent. There are also of course some standard actions that provoke (casting, trip without imp trip, etc). But movement is distinctly always a move action to move from one square to another. Acro is specifically allowing you to avoid the AoO for movement move actions. The FAQ clearly demonstrates that the AoO for entering an opponents square is a movement related AoO - else why use the example that moving through multiple threatened squares only provokes once? What the FAQ tells us is that the AoO for leaving a threatened square is the same AoO for entering an occupied square, with the specific additional rule that a 5' step does not negate the AoO like it normally does.
The rules on this don't need refinement to be more clear. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting them. (I base this statement on the fact that you'd actually run it how the rules do in fact say it should be run).
I believe any creature that enters another's square provokes unless it has special rules saying otherwise. Can you give a counter-example?
The question here is WHY its provoking. And there's no clear answer but...
If it was provoking because it was entering a square then a creature moving in SHOULD provoke twice, but it doesn't.
If the creature only provokes once, then it provokes because its leaving a threatened square to enter another square and the only thing the FAQ says is that a 5 foot step won't negate the AoO for leaving a threatened square if you're entering a creatures own space.
Its also entirely possible that there's a way of looking at it that i don't see, or that there isn't any consistency on the issue and some things just do and some things just dont *shrug*
Can you please point out in the acrobatics rules where it separates acro preventing AoO's from moving through adjacent squares vs moving through enemy squares?Acrobatics does neither of those two things. It prevents AoOs from moving through threatened squares. Source is the first sentence of that rules section which has been quoted previously.
Are you really going to pick my words apart that much? I thought it should have been obvious that by stating adjacent squares I meant those squares threatened by an enemy. Now, do you have an answer to the actual question, instead of dodging it?
To do what you want it to do it would have to say: "you can prevent movement related attacks of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics". It does not, however, say this.
Huh? That is exactly what it says (just not in those exact same words). "In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."
If a square is being threatened, and you can move through it without provoking - you are avoiding a movement related AoO.
Can you list a single type of AoO from movement (not a move action, actual movement) that is not a movement related AoO? Or are you going to argue that entering another creatures square is not movement?
If we are going to go to that level of pedantry I could argue that acro can't ever prevent AoO's. Acro prevents AoO's from moving through threatened squares, but movement only provokes AoO's for "Moving out of a threatened square..." and since moving out of is not the same as moving through - it doesn't block the AoO that results from moving out.
...Acro is specifically allowing you to avoid the AoO for movement move actions. The FAQ clearly demonstrates that the AoO for entering an opponents square is a movement related AoO...Again, it doesn't do that. It only prevents AoOs triggered by moving through threatened squares.
Isn't that exactly what I just said? (Or go see overt level of pedantry above).
Entering another creatures square is moving (Yes or no?) Entering another creatures square provokes (normally). The FAQ says that moving into an enemy square only ever provokes one AoO (yes or no?) If there is only one, why is that? Because is the triggering event. And if one half of the SAME triggering event was moving through a threatened square, then so must the other half be. See for example greater trip and vicious stomp. Two separate events as called out by the FAQ on greater trip/vicious stomp.
The FAQ actually demonstrates that there are different types of movement-triggered AoOs.
Again no, because if there were there would be two potential AoO's generated. All the FAQ does is makes a specific exception to the 5' step rule that prevents AoO's. 5' stepping into a creatures square doesn't prevent the AoO - but it makes no such exception for other things that could prevent the AoO.
For example, if I have total concealment due to invisibility, do I take an AoO for stepping into an enemy square? No.
If I'm tiny and spring attack an opponent, moving into its square, do I provoke an AoO? No.
If I cast bladed dash, and move through an opponent, do I provoke? No.
Acro is the same. If I succeed on the check I do not provoke. The whole paragraph is about using acro to avoid AoO's - as set by that first sentence. You cannot separate the thoughts in the paragraph and insist that that portion only applies to part of the paragraph. That is not how paragraphs work.
That is part of gleaning, or understanding the whole concept.
This is not the case. A competent GM can glean what the rules are trying to say and read them in a reasonable RAI manner, while at the same time acknowledging that the written rules are a bit ambiguous and potentially misleading and thus worthy of potential clarification.
A GM needs to be able to read the rules, and when there may be some ambiguity in them, understand what the intent is, and not insist that the other reading is somehow RAW that doesn't match RAI. Why would you do that?
I believe any creature that enters another's square provokes unless it has special rules saying otherwise. Can you give a counter-example?The question here is WHY its provoking. And there's no clear answer but...
I don't believe the WHY does it provoke question even matters here. The paragraph on acro and table (plus footnote) talks about avoiding AoO's. And it mentions two things in that paragraph - moving through threatened squares and moving through enemies.
Likewise the table only shows two things - the same two the paragraph talks about.
It needs to be shown that avoiding AoO's only applies to one of those.
A creature leaving a square to enter another creatures square IS moving through a threatened square, they're not mutually exclusive events. (just like a wizard walking away from the fighter intent on casting a spell at the end of their movement moves through their own first square and draws the AOO.
<--
|Wi|Fi|
So the songbird of doom doing the opposite
--->
|Sb|Fi|
is moving through their own square into the fighters.
The difference between them is that the Songbird can't 5 foot step to avoid the aoo. And thats why the WHY of that matters.
If the songbird gets whacked because entering a creatures square is its own provoking event, that goes against the idea that they can tumble in BUT...the bird moving this way should draw 2 AoO's if that the case but he doesn't.
If the songbird gets whacked because he's moving through a threatened square and the 5 foot step exception just doesn't apply, he's getting whacked for moving from a threatened square, the exact sort of thing that tumbling can prevent.
I have nothing new to add, I just wanna see if I'm following the discussion properly.
I think the rules at play are:
1) A tiny creature's movement into an occupied square provokes for two reasons:
a) Leaving a threatened square
b) Entering an occupied square
2) 5ft steps do not prevent provocation due to clause b of Rule 1.
3) Acrobatics explicitly allows you to move through (and therefore enter) an opponent's space without provoking with a CMD+5 DC.
4) Even with a 5-foot step, a Tiny or smaller creature entering a creature’s space provokes an attack of opportunity (unless it is using a more specific ability to avoid the attack of opportunity such as the Monkey Shine feat). Which is not at all the same thing as "a Tiny or smaller creature entering a creature’s space ALWAYS provokes an attack of opportunity."
The discussion seems to be that one camp believes Acrobatics constitutes "a more specific ability to avoid the attack of opportunity such as the Monkey Shine feat," and the other doesn't. Is that a reasonable summation?
Now, do you have an answer to the actual question, instead of dodging it? ... Huh? That is exactly what it says (just not in those exact same words).Did you read my reply? I gave a direct answer and a specific reference on where to look to see the rule. Claiming that something is "exactly what it says" but "just not in those exact same words"... amuses me. The wording is important in this case, imho.
Yes. I read your response. I'll quote it back to you.
Acrobatics does neither of those two things. It prevents AoOs from moving through threatened squares.
Here you dodge the question by picking apart my words because I said adjacent squares instead of threatened squares.
You then continue with this:
Source is the first sentence of that rules section which has been quoted previously.
A quote I first pointed out to you. So what does it mean to move "through" something.
A quick google definition search provides this.
moving in one side and out of the other side of (an opening, channel, or location).
So let me break it down further. To move through something you must of necessity move in (or enter) one side, then move out (or leave) the other side.
So you can either say through means just that, or you can separate it into 3 distinct parts: enter, through, leave. Am I correct in believing you want to separate it into 3 distinct parts? (Cause that is what I'm getting from everything you've written so far).
We can do that if you want, but then acrobatics does nothing for avoiding AoO's - because it only prevents AoO's for moving through threatened squares. However the rules only gives us 2 general triggers for AoO's related to movement. Entering a creatures space (and the creature must be threatening for it to have the option of taking an AoO, so really entering a creatures space while threatened), and the second way is leaving a threatened square. Split into 3 parts, neither of those constitute the "through" part.
I never said either of these two things. Entering a creature's square is a movement related AoO. However, it is a movement related AoO which Acrobatics does not help against.
I'll ask again, where is the rules exception that points this out? Because in order to have an exception to the rules, there must actually be a written exception to the rules.
For example: Power attack adds -1 to hit, +2 to damage, unless you are slowed or underwater. No, it doesn't say that. That might be a reasonable house rule to make - how can you power attack when other factors prevent you from swinging with your full might? But there is no such exception written into the rules.
So I just pointed out what through means. The rules say
...you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
You've said
Entering a creature's square is a movement related AoO.
Do the rules mean what they say or do they mean something different?
I believe bladed dash's intent is prevent normal AoOs from leaving threatened squares
That's fine you can believe that is the intent. I'd even agree with you that it is not blanket immunity to AoO - e.g, spring attack, make a trip attempt w/o imp trip, and you provoke. However, intent is not RAW. And I disagree with you on both counts - both prevent movement related AoO's. Bladed dash specifically calls it out "This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity." - mimicking the acro rules on movement related AoO's.
A creature leaving a square to enter another creatures square IS moving through a threatened square, they're not mutually exclusive events.This isn't always the case. If a large creature enters a tiny creature's space it is not leaving a threatened square yet still provokes for entering the tiny creature's square. (well, I guess they're eventually moving through a threatened square, but I hope you get my meaning)
No it doesn't. AoO's go off before the triggering event. The big creature is out of reach of the tiny creature before it enters its square. The big creature is not in a threatened square at the time the AoO would be triggered.
The AoO would apply for a small (or larger) creatures square being entered by a 3x larger creature.
Although by your usage of entering vs through, the larger creature would not provoke for entering as the rules do not state it would, They only state
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: ... A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.
With no mention of AoO for entering.
Likewise, if a small creature is not "A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature..." it does not provoke for entering, because the rules only state that creatures of these small sizes provoke for "entering".
And on a side argument
Claiming that something is "exactly what it says" but "just not in those exact same words"... amuses me.
"Someone threw a baseball in the window."
"A baseball was thrown through the window."Exact same meaning, different words. English is like that. It's possible to convey the same meaning with different words and sentence structure.
Do the rules mean what they say or do they mean something different?
Yes. Even for the differing values of what they say.
I'm not trying to separate it into 3 parts nor am I being that pedantic with the wording. However Acrobatics states it prevents AoOs from moving through threatened squares not from other movement related AoOs. Just because you're only allowed to take AoOs into threatened squares doesn't mean every AoO caused by movement is the result of moving through a threatened square.
So would you say the AoO triggered from leaving a threatened square is similar to an AoO for entering a creatures square, but they are different triggers? Because if that is the case there should be two AoO's generated. I'll show as an example another FAQ.
Greater Trip: How does this interact with Vicious Stomp (APG)? Do you get two AOOs or just one?
Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.
Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO occurs when a foe falls prone.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
I'll also point out that casting a spell triggers an AoO, and if that spell is a ranged attack spell, the attack with said ranged attack spell also triggers an AoO? Isn't attacking with a ranged spell part of the casting of it? Well we might generally think of them as one and the same thing, the mechanics for AoO's shows they are not - they are separate triggering acts.
Yet, here with this FAQ, we can never get more than one AoO? Why is that if these are similar triggers but not the same trigger? No where else in the rules do different triggers for AoO's not each provoke their own distinct AoO.
Acrobatics only prevents AoOs from moving through threatened squares. Not AoOs from other things, such as entering a creature's square.
Upon what basis do you decide that leaving a threatened square qualifies as part of the "through threatened squares" in that first sentence, but entering a creatures square does not? That is a completely arbitrary call on your part - one not supported by any of the rules/tables/FAQ's etc.
So you point to the acro rules and tell me it doesn't read like I think it does, then provide zero additional evidence.
I point to the acro rules and tell you you are the one reading it wrong, then show the table supports my view point. Then show a similar case (greater trip/vicious stomp) that does indeed provide 2 AoO's.
I show you the current FAQ and how the AoO for leaving a threatened square and entering a creatures square never provokes more than once, which happens no where else in the rules.
We talk about movement related AoO's, and you tell me their is some unmentioned distinction between the two.
Do you actually have any support for your position other than "Because Byakko says so?" - cause I've given several rules and FAQ citations to support my position.
Underfoot assault is just an extension of what we are already disagreeing about, but rather on exiting a creatures square instead of entering it - again an AoO that is generated as a result of movement.
e.g, point 4 I'd argue they aren't really different trigger conditions, because if they were similar, but different, then there would be two AoO's (just like trip/stomp). And just like the FAQ on entering says 2 AoO's would not be generated (because they are the same trigger).
I WOULD expect the PDT would rule that a 5' step cannot avoid the AoO in this case just like they did for entering, though that is currently not the case - leaving open the same argument that resulted in the 'entering FAQ' - are they separate triggers or are they the same trigger?
Monkey Shine I don't think adds anything to your argument, rather it makes it even weaker.
The last sentence of monkey shine reads
If otherwise unhindered, the opponent can move away from you, but if he does, he provokes an attack of opportunity from you even if his choice of movement does not normally do so.
That text is missing from entering a creatures square rules, or the FAQ about entering a creatures square - meaning they either forgot it in both cases, or that normal means of avoiding AoO's from movement still work (though the FAQ specifically made an exception that 5' would still provoke) leaving Acrobatics, spring attack, bladed dash, and any other means of moving that does not trigger an AoO still in place and effective.
Note that if it was a separate trigger, they wouldn't even need to call that out, because a separate trigger (e.g, its not part of the leaving a threatened square trigger) would already not be avoidable through normal means (5' step, acro).