Had a GM that ruled using Handle Animal as a move action to get a pet to attack is a distracting act that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Is there anything in the rules for or against this ruling?
There is nothing in the rules that spells this out. If that's the way your GM rules it, then that's the way it is for a home game. Just make sure to take advantage of it should you run into an opponent with an animal companion (rules that work against the PC should also work against opponents).
I know someone will bring up attacking police dogs as an example why it shouldn't provoke, yet you should respect your GM's call in situations that don't have clear rules.
Looking at the Combat table, it states that using a skill usually provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
Although nothing in Handle Animal itself says that it does, I think it depends on the way Handle Animal is used, and to a point, the GM isn't unreasonable in his ruling. (But he isn't exactly correct, either.)
To me, using a Move Action to direct an Animal Companion would be similar to spells that require Move Actions to direct unto enemies; Spiritual Weapon, Flame Sphere, etc. doesn't provoke for directing those, so I don't see why this would provoke either.
Now if you were pushing an Animal Companion, I would rule that it would provoke, due that you're doing something obviously distracting, but as far as stuff that the Animal Companion is trained on, then no, it shouldn't provoke.
Using skills is a constant source of debate at our table....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
So you have one place, under Move actions, saying that using a skill as a Move action usually provokes, and you have another place, under Free actions, saying that Free actions rarely provoke.
Like so many things in this game, you, as the GM, will need to decide how to resolve that conflict in the rules for your game. That is what the GM is there for.
Personally, since it is now a free action, and free actions rarely provoke, I'm going to rule that it doesn't provoke. Because when something says it rarely provokes, then I'd like to see a direct rule that tells me that this specific free action is an exception. Link does not say that it becomes a free action, but still provokes. So I feel justified as a GM ruling that the text under free actions removes the Attack of Opportunity. A player can disagree, but that's not going to change the way that I read the rule, unless they point me to something I haven't seen yet or can make a convincing enough case for their interpretation.
As a PFS GM, I might let something slide at a table that I don't believe to be correct, in the interest of not interrupting the game, but I'll follow up the discussion with the player later to see if one or the other of us is missing something.
EDIT: The flip-side is true as well. As a player, I might sit down at a table with a GM who insists that it does provoke. If I make my case, and the GM still wants to rule it their way, then I can either except that and continue playing and having fun, or I can walk away from the table. I'm going to choose continue playing and having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What am i?
"Wha...
"haha! knowledge check! AOO!" thwack.