What is your dexterity modifier ?
A character normally gets 1 AoO.
Combat Reflexes increases this by your dexterity mod. If you have a dex mod of 0, the only benefit is the ability to take an AoO while flat-footed.
What ability/other feat are you asking if Combat Reflexes stacks with ? I've looked at the Buccaneer Archetype and the Duelist class, but don't see anything in either that grants extra AoOs.
1) Mobility only works when provoking attacks from movement, as does the Duelist's Enhanced Mobility.
2) "You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed."
3) I fail to the see the difference for you. Neither the Buccaneer nor the Duelist get bonus attacks of opportunities. They only have ways of promoting them, and without Combat Reflexes would only give you 1/round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<face palms>
Well shaventalz already pulled out the relevant rule that one CAN'T take a feat twice and have its benefits stack unless it specifically states you can. Which Combat Reflexes does not.
"You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus."
You won't be able to pick that up again and have another additional amount of AoO equal to Dex mod to stack with first bunch. That's the very example of stacking that one is not allowed to do by the rules.
And given the fact that some specifically state you can't and others specifically state you can but they don't stack I'd say unless it says you can't you can.
It doesn't work that way. "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description" is the default rule. Not "if it doesn't say it doesn't stack, assume you can." That's just adamantly doing it wrong; as if saying, "My weapon doesn't say it DOESN'T apply bleed damage. It's a slashing weapon so any living creature I cut with it must bleed."
Your argument of Mobility providing a +4 bonus to AC when moving and provoking AoOs doesn't help your case in any way. One could provoke from MULTIPLE enemies. And movement only triggers an AoO from each enemy once. A person could walk in and out one enemy's threatened area multiple times and only trigger it once. "This feat [Combat Reflexes] does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
ALSO, Mobility's AC bonus while provoking AoO from movement wouldn't stack with itself if th feat is taken again, if that somehow comes up.
Everyone always seems to forget the part about movement within a threatened area. You would have to make a very strong case for me to believe that getting up from a prone condition (which provokes an AOO) is not movement within a threatened area. As with things like drinking potions, getting something from a bag, spellcasting(obviously not defensively) etc. The very reason these things cause AOOs is because they are forms of movement that preclude one's ability to defend one's self. Now I've looked on the forums as pertains to this but not one thread even mentions this part. They only focus on movement out of a threatened area.
Standing up from prone is a move action that already provokes. Standing up from prone however is not movement within a threatened area. Movement in game terms is usually moving from one square to another. Thus one is still able to 5-foot step after standing up from prone. Your examples of "drinking potions, getting something from a bag, spellcasting(obviously not defensively) etc" do not count as movement or moving from a square. They count as move actions, of which "move your speed" is an option for a move action. If ANY of those count as movement, then one could not take a 5-foot step in the same round, which is ridiculous. They do provoke because those specific actions state they provoke. But not because they're "movement".
And forums only focus on movement out of a threatened area because that's what the rules ACTUALLY state.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: 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.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
So it's not simply movement in a square. Shivering or moving one's arms to attack a target is not going to trigger anything. All your examples fall under Performing a Distracting Act that one references the Actions in Combat table, the specific wording of a feature/ability (like with spell-like abilities), and GM rulings.
Everyone always seems to forget the part about movement within a threatened area. You would have to make a very strong case for me to believe that getting up from a prone condition (which provokes an AOO) is not movement within a threatened area. As with things like drinking potions, getting something from a bag, spellcasting(obviously not defensively) etc. The very reason these things cause AOOs is because they are forms of movement that preclude one's ability to defend one's self. Now I've looked on the forums as pertains to this but not one thread even mentions this part. They only focus on movement out of a threatened area.
Movement in this context means using a type of movement speed - walk, fly, swim, climb, etc. It does not mean take a move equivalent action.
That is why the book lists things like getting up from prone, retrieving items, etc all provoke - because they do not fall under the general rule of movement provoking. If they did there would be no need to call that out separately.
But if you really want to argue that any of these count as movement, then you also get to argue that taking any of those move equivalent actions also prevents you from taking a 5' step on your turn.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement.
Additionally, would you also then argue that mobility gives you +4 to AC when making a trip, grapple, etc attempt without the associated improved feat? Because all of those forms of attacking are movement by the broad definition of movement (they just aren't for the pathfinder specific use of the word movement).
Good luck with that discussion.... :)
|
If you can UMD, have an INT bonus, and can buy wands at higher caster level, then the line in the sand spell will give you extra AoOs equal to your INT bonus. It's rounds/level, though, so definitely need it at a higher CL.
First off, I'm not the one getting snippy. You asked for specifics, I gave them to you. Not sure how giving people the answer in a dry factual way is snippy. Unless you take offense at the idea that it might be hard to wrap your head around easily provoking that many AOOs, which in context suggested that I understood. So am I being snippy with myself? Because I didn't notice this when I first built the character, but when I was going back over it with a friend.
No one cares about you benefiting from that many AoOs, it's your expecting Combat Reflexes to stack with itself and what would provoke an AoO.
And I'm really not sure why people think they can type #facepalm and actually expect people to listen to them. In my experience people resorting to these methods do so because they have no actual argument, nor maturity (btw this is snippiness and its well deserved).
The <face palm> is well earned if you're just going to ignore someone else's quoting of the rules and just go with, "I'd say unless it says you can't you can."
And one of you continually says its in the feats section. Where? I note you don't quote anything. I've looked at it several times and I see no restriction on the number of times one can take a feat.
PRD Feats or Feats chapter in Core Rulebook
The following format is used for all feat descriptions.
Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do.
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat.
Now as to the mobility argument, a few good points were made. Given the arguments I have no idea what movement inside a threatened area means, unless they mean movement from one threatened square to another. But why would they need to reiterate since movement out of a threatened square is what causes an AOO in the first place. Either way mobility is still quite useful for this build. P.S. Kudos to BBangerter on having something to say rather than having to say something.
The rules don't actually reiterate movement inside a square. The rules provoking AoOs are EITHER moving out of a square or performing a distracting act (such as casting a spell, drinking a potion, digging through a bag). Distracting acts provoke because they divert person's attention; not because someone's moving.
I have never heard someone be able to say 'I know its hard to wrap one's head around . . ." and manage to sound condescending. This is an inclusive statement suggesting the issuer understands your thinking/assumptions/reasoning. Most of the time I've heard this the person went on to state they'd made that same mistake. It is not a condescending phrase.
It is when one's assuming one does "wrap one's head around" the subject and assuming the other person doesn't.
Lastly mobility SPECIFICALLY states that it gives a +4 against AOOs provoked by movement out of, OR WITHIN a threatened area. So my question is exactly what movement this is referring too. As I stated above, it makes no sense to add this in reference to movement from one threatened square to another within a creature's threat zone, as this is already covered by the 'movement out of a threatened area' portion of the feat. All of the above distracting acts do require movement that would preclude defense, such as reaching into a bag, performing the gestural motions for a spell, or pushing one's self off the ground.
And if we rule out any move actions within a square what do we have left? What does this explicit statement refer to?
You provoke when leaving a threatened SQUARE.
Threatened AREA is basically the areas you threaten, or all your threatened SQUARES:You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
If you leave one threatened square into non-threatened square, you left enemy's threatened AREA.
If you leave one threatened square into another threatened square (for example, you're still adjacent to enemy after moving), you're still within enemy's threatened AREA and moving within it.
The use of "threatened area" only seems to appear with Mobility's text so it's more of an issue of how the feat's been written up since 3rd Edition D&D. "Threatened area" doesn't come up anywhere in Combat chapter in either 3.X D&D or Pathfinder.
Also a buddy of mine pointed out that some spells don't require gestures, so these would not be covered. After some perusal we found this table: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#Table-Actions-in-Combat
So my guess is that anything under the 'move' heading is helped by mobility. As such quaffing a potion or casting a spell would not be helped by mobility, but sheathing/drawing a weapon, standing up from prone, or retrieving a stored item would benefit from Mobility.
The Move heading is simply to denote those are all Move actions to perform. Mobility is for moving out of threatened squares; either out of threatened area or staying within the area. Mobility doesn't help with Distracting Acts that provoke AoOs that the table you listed url to indicates.
....I'm afraid to ask, but are you and buddy now thinking that if a spell doesn't have somatic components (needing to move hand around in gestures) casting such a spell no longer provokes? Or if the spell does require it, Mobility feat would help against the AoO?
Mobility is poorly written that it states moving within and out of threatened area whereas it could have simply went with "leaving a threatened square." But the feat is taken word for word from D&D 3rd edition.
But Mobility doesn't help with move actions that aren't involving moving up to your speed (the first entry in the Move actions examples in Combat chapter, "Move: The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can't also take a 5-foot step.") and leaving a threatened square. Into or out of a threatened area. Someone moves 3 squares but all the squares are adjacent to enemy? Never left threatened area and moving within it.
Those entries under the Move category are JUST to tell you that they require Move Actions to perform. Technically ALL actions require moving of some sort, because that's what an action is = moving. But in game terms, you only provoke when moving out of threatened square, and distracting acts (doesn't matter what action was used to perform it, such as drinking a potion requiring a standard action and provokes). So to apply Mobility to those move actions, which is a limited list that doesn't take into account new options as they come up (like NEW maneuvers or maneuver feats that could be reduced to move action for whatever reason), but not to other actions that require moving an arm and is non-move action (standard or full-round) is pretty inconsistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had to dig DEEP for this reference from the old Wizards of the Coast page:
Because you must threaten your foe before you can make an attack of opportunity, it pays to examine what area you can threaten and when you threaten it.
As noted earlier, you threaten all the squares on the battlefield into which you can make an armed melee attack.
The Mobility feat doesn't stop attacks of opportunity against you when you leave threatened squares, but it gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC when you provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened square. A dodge bonus, however, doesn't help you when you're denied your Dexterity bonus against an attack, as you would be when moving past a foe you can't see.
The Combat Reflexes feat allows you to make one extra attack of opportunity per point of Dexterity bonus you have. You still can make only one attack of opportunity for each opportunity that your foe gives you. For example, if you have Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity score of 15 you can make up the three attacks of opportunity each turn. You could make all three of them against the same foe, provided that the foe does three different things that provoke attacks of opportunity. If your foe is a spellcaster and he casts a spell while you threaten him, you can make only one attack of opportunity in response to that spell (even though you are entitled to three attacks of opportunity this round). If, on the other hand, the spellcaster picks up a dropped item, you could make an attack of opportunity against him. If the character then casts a spell, you could make a second attack of opportunity against him. If one of your allies bull rushes the spellcaster and moves him 5 feet, you could make a third attack of opportunity against him. [Protoman's Note: This bull rush example is 3rd edition specific. A bull rushed target in Pathfinder doesn't provoke unless one uses Greater Bull Rush.]
Note that moving out of more than one threatened square during a turn counts as only one "opportunity" for the moving creature's foes (see page 138 in the Player's Handbook). If the character in the previous example moved and left three (or more) squares that you threaten and did nothing else that provokes attacks of opportunity from you, you'd get only one attack of opportunity against him.
|
|
The Character's Dex at this point is 28 gaining him 10 AOOs as he already has Combat Reflexes. The question is whether one could take Combat Reflexes twice to gain him a max of 19 AOOs. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around but it is entirely possible for him to use all 10 of his AOOs in a round and need more
As I understand it, you can't take the same feat twice. There's also a bit about being unable to apply the same ability score mod to something twice, so even if you had Combat Reflexes twice, you wouldn't be adding 2x dex mod attacks per round and that isn't legal.
As for gaining additional AoOs per turn. There is a Barbarian Rage power and one of the Elf feats from ARG can each grant an additional AoO per turn which should stack with those from Combat reflexes. Might be other options out there.
And, yeah, I totally get that you can use lots of AoOs per turn. I tried a build like this once, but my regular party members are too overpowered offensively to make it work (nothing lasts more than a few turns, unless no one can damage it...).
The Character's Dex at this point is 28 gaining him 10 AOOs as he already has Combat Reflexes. The question is whether one could take Combat Reflexes twice to gain him a max of 19 AOOs. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around but it is entirely possible for him to use all 10 of his AOOs in a round and need moreAs I understand it, you can't take the same feat twice. There's also a bit about being unable to apply the same ability score mod to something twice, so even if you had Combat Reflexes twice, you wouldn't be adding 2x dex mod attacks per round and that isn't legal.
As for gaining additional AoOs per turn. There is a Barbarian Rage power and one of the Elf feats from ARG can each grant an additional AoO per turn which should stack with those from Combat reflexes. Might be other options out there.
And, yeah, I totally get that you can use lots of AoOs per turn. I tried a build like this once, but my regular party members are too overpowered offensively to make it work (nothing lasts more than a few turns, unless no one can damage it...).
God i forget where i read it but i think there was a ...fighter archetype? that let you use your STR for AOO's too but IIRC it was treated as combat reflexes so i dont know if itd apply
God i forget where i read it but i think there was a ...fighter archetype? that let you use your STR for AOO's too but IIRC it was treated as combat reflexes so i dont know if itd applyThe Character's Dex at this point is 28 gaining him 10 AOOs as he already has Combat Reflexes. The question is whether one could take Combat Reflexes twice to gain him a max of 19 AOOs. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around but it is entirely possible for him to use all 10 of his AOOs in a round and need moreAs I understand it, you can't take the same feat twice. There's also a bit about being unable to apply the same ability score mod to something twice, so even if you had Combat Reflexes twice, you wouldn't be adding 2x dex mod attacks per round and that isn't legal.
As for gaining additional AoOs per turn. There is a Barbarian Rage power and one of the Elf feats from ARG can each grant an additional AoO per turn which should stack with those from Combat reflexes. Might be other options out there.
And, yeah, I totally get that you can use lots of AoOs per turn. I tried a build like this once, but my regular party members are too overpowered offensively to make it work (nothing lasts more than a few turns, unless no one can damage it...).
From Heroes of the High Court, the High Guardian archetype. Pretty good for a two level dip. It's Strength instead of Dexterity for Combat Reflexes and you get it as a bonus feat instead of regular level 2 feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted the original intention of the Mobility feat with the old Wizards of the Coast info. You're right Paizo hasn't errata'd/fixed/changed that, so Paizo is keeping the original intention: Mobility is for leaving threatened squares. Anything else at this point is you being insistent on your interpretation of rules which hasn't changed in 13 years.
Also you started this thread asking for everyone's thoughts but it's clear you were hoping for a ready agreement to your already-made interpretation of the matter, rather than what others had to say about the rules different to your interpretation.
If you're only going to accept assenting views or developers' response, should have done that in the first place so the usual "don't hold your breath" comments could be made since you weren't willing to accept anyone else's comments, quotes, or rule references.
EDIT: And I feel it's been earned again: <face palm> <face palm> <face palm>
Mobility adds ac when you move, not when you make use a move equivalent action. It explains right in the text. Reading it any other way is just making stuff up.
|
Move actions do provoke as per the table i linked.
Certain move actions provoke, not move actions across the board.
Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.
One kind of movement in a threatened area but not out of a threatened square could be a climbing movement upwards, right? So this may be a possible reason to mention both types of movements in the feat description.
Or am I wrong?
"when you move" is not "when you make a move action" The two things are very different.
Look, bottom line is it seems everyone else disagrees with you. If you convince your GM you are right, more power to you, but you probably won't convince most GMs, and if it was me and and I faced similar unanimity of disagreement against what I thought I would at least consider that I was in error.
One kind of movement in a threatened area but not out of a threatened square could be a climbing movement upwards, right? So this may be a possible reason to mention both types of movements in the feat description.
Or am I wrong?
That would indeed provoke, but it is still moving out of a threatened square, while for most circumstances the grid is considered two dimensional, when necessary it can, and should, be treated as three dimensional.
Actually not all movement is a move action. A charge will provoke a AoO due to movement even though it is a full round (or standard partial), not a move action.
Its your game. If you want to pretend the mobility says "when you make a move action" go ahead. Nothing wrong with a house rule, and personally I think that feat would be better and more balanced with others if it was just +4 to any attack of opportunity, but the actual rules are the actual rules.
I never said all move actions provoke. I said they do AS PER THE TABLE I LINKED.
Guys moving IS a move action. It really doesn't matter how many people jump on one side or other. This isn't a vote. It's about what works. I find your arguments lacking a concrete proof. You admit you think the feat isn't worded well because it doesn't reflect the way you think it should work. I am simply reading it as written.
And I'm the GM for this campaign. This was about making sure it was Kosher for the players and their enemies as I don't want to cheat anyone.
Those move actions in the table specify they provoke, just like any other distracting act would, be it standard or full round. However, they don't count as movement for Mobility purposes. Mobility doesn't help AC for provoking an AoO when sheathing a weapon or standing up from prone.
It's not a vote, you're reading it wrong and you're adamantly refusing to listen to what others have to say when proof is presented. The only evidence and arguments you've presented basically comes down to: "They're move actions. One has to move to perform them. It's movement within a threatened area. I'm reading it right. All of you aren't."
|
|
Really? How do you figure considering it specifies movement WITHIN a threatened area?
Because a Move action is not always movement.
A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move actions.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
Really? How do you figure considering it specifies movement WITHIN a threatened area? As I've already pointed out countless times above this can not be speaking to exiting a square as that is stated ahead of time.Guys moving IS a move action.But a move action isn't moving for the purpose of Mobility activating.
A threatened area consists of all the threatened squares around you. Moving within a threatened area is simply moving from one threatened square to another threatened square. As explained. Repeatedly.
You are correct, also a charge specifies it doesn't provoke. Nor does a 5 foot step provoke. But I'm not worried about all move actions in the game. I don't think it works for every move action in the game. I only think it applies to the actions that provoke that are designated as move actions.Actually not all movement is a move action. A charge will provoke a AoO due to movement even though it is a full round (or standard partial), not a move action.
Its your game. If you want to pretend the mobility says "when you make a move action" go ahead. Nothing wrong with a house rule, and personally I think that feat would be better and more balanced with others if it was just +4 to any attack of opportunity, but the actual rules are the actual rules.
Charging ABSOLUTELY does provoke if someone's charge lane involves exiting threatened squares, either passing enemy's buddies or if target had reach weapon out.
No where in the charge rules does it says it's exempt from provoking AoOs normally.