| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is a FAQ request thread, not an "argument" thread or rules-query thread. (There's been enough of those already with exhaustive argumentation from all sides over the last few years, and they have not resolved underlying issues of English wording intent, i.e., "grants...more attacks of opportunity" as opposed to "can make...additional attacks of opportunity", etc.)
So please, hit the FAQ button, and let's get it resolved.
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.
Questions:
1. Is it the intention that this enhancement bypass the normal limitation of one AoO per round (a limit normally increased via Combat Reflexes or the barbarian rage-power Quick Reflexes)?
2. Is it the intention that the "second attack of opportunity" be an additional attack undertaken immediately against the opponent which provoked the first, or is it intended to be a potential AoO which does not trigger unless the opponent provokes again in the same round (i.e., it increases the available pool of AoOs, as if a minor version of Combat Reflexes)?
You're probably going to get "no response required" on this one.
44 clicks on this one.
That thread only concerns the Q1 part of this one, and I've seen both issues come up. The second part is IMO the more serious issue, since the first can be dealt with by simply taking Combat Reflexes (already a popular feat, and all of my builds with Fortuitous have it).
I've never heard of part 2 being in question. It's an immediate second attack.
Yeah, no FAQ needed.
1. The attack is referred to as a second AoO, which would mean you need an additional AoO to carry out.
2. The final sentence specifies it must be used against the same foe that provokes the first AoO.
The second sentence is a chunk of weasel words.
The ability allows you to immediately attempt another attack of opportunity against the target. Because it says "a second attack of opportunity," you need Combat Reflexes or a similar ability to make use of this. This is probably why this enhancement only costs a +1.
The text itself says that you can make a second attack of opportunity. Abilities generally don't say "you can make another attack" without actually granting you the ability to make said attack. Rapid Shot, for example, doesn't require you to have another iterative left in order to make use of it. You get an immediate second attack of opportunity at -5, full stop. This covers both 1 & 2.
The text itself says that you can make a second attack of opportunity. Abilities generally don't say "you can make another attack" without actually granting you the ability to make said attack. Rapid Shot, for example, doesn't require you to have another iterative left in order to make use of it. You get an immediate second attack of opportunity at -5, full stop. This covers both 1 & 2.
The question lies in the wording. If it was a free attack why not just say you get a free attack? If it's letting you use another AoO that combat reflexes gave, then saying you can make another AoO makes sense. It's letting them provoke twice effectively.
I feel that needing combat reflexes is more in line with a +1 ability, but I could be wrong.
The second sentence is a chunk of weasel words. The ability allows you to immediately attempt another attack of opportunity against the target.
That is one interpretation, and one I happen to prefer and employ, but I have seen it be an issue, and thus it being part of this FAQ request. There is no "immediate attempt" in the RAW wording, and the phrasing "can make a second attack of opportunity..." carries a different implication than "can make a second attack of opportunity immediately".
Note also that Fortuitous appears to be permitting two AoOs against the same target for the same provocation, i.e., similar to the Greater Trip + Vicious Stomp combo that eventually went to FAQ. (If Fortuitous were a feat, there'd be a reminder of the "Normal:" rule following the "Benefit:" section, and "specific trumps general" intent could be subsequently parsed. Alas, such formatting standardization is lacking in weapon enhancement descriptions.)
Because it says "a second attack of opportunity," you need Combat Reflexes or a similar ability to make use of this. This is probably why this enhancement only costs a +1.
These are arguments (even reasonable ones that I like, such as that one right there), but not FAQ clicks. Please click the FAQ button.
Thanks. (I did not know that.)
Let's change the title and un-jinx it, then.
The text itself says that you can make a second attack of opportunity. Abilities generally don't say "you can make another attack" without actually granting you the ability to make said attack. Rapid Shot, for example, doesn't require you to have another iterative left in order to make use of it. You get an immediate second attack of opportunity at -5, full stop. This covers both 1 & 2.
Rapid Shot doesn't involve AoO rules in its effects. Therefore, no one questions how Rapid Shot works in a full attack.
Even then, Rapid Shot says it's an extra attack, which is in addition to other attacks being made, so its language is much more precise, and doesn't come with added baggage, unlike here, making it a bad example.
The fact of the matter is that you can't justify the property being its own exception to the general rule, that everything else has to follow, especially when the opposite reading (the property is not an exception) is equally valid and has more RAW support for it in comparison.
But just for fun, here's a question: If we followed your interpretation, and still had someone with Combat Reflexes use the weapon, would you really let them effectively double the amount of AoOs they could make in a round? Because that's basically what you're allowing to happen. Reach users just became a lot less MAD if that's the case, and heaven forbid that a Swashbuckler can both parry an attack and follow up with one (or even two) attacks against everyone that dares attack him, and be able to do that up to 13 times without even trying!
I feel that needing combat reflexes is more in line with a +1 ability, but I could be wrong.
Considering that Courageous got nerfed by being too good for a +1 property, the FAQ will either reaffirm the need for Combat Reflexes, or allow the free AoO, but raise the price to a +2 or +3 to compensate.
The text itself says that you can make a second attack of opportunity. Abilities generally don't say "you can make another attack" without actually granting you the ability to make said attack. Rapid Shot, for example, doesn't require you to have another iterative left in order to make use of it. You get an immediate second attack of opportunity at -5, full stop. This covers both 1 & 2.Rapid Shot doesn't involve AoO rules in its effects. Therefore, no one questions how Rapid Shot works in a full attack.
Even then, Rapid Shot says it's an extra attack, which is in addition to other attacks being made, so its language is much more precise, and doesn't come with added baggage, unlike here, making it a bad example.
The fact of the matter is that you can't justify the property being its own exception to the general rule, that everything else has to follow, especially when the opposite reading (the property is not an exception) is equally valid and has more RAW support for it in comparison.
But just for fun, here's a question: If we followed your interpretation, and still had someone with Combat Reflexes use the weapon, would you really let them effectively double the amount of AoOs they could make in a round? Because that's basically what you're allowing to happen. Reach users just became a lot less MAD if that's the case, and heaven forbid that a Swashbuckler can both parry an attack and follow up with one (or even two) attacks against everyone that dares attack him, and be able to do that up to 13 times without even trying!
To be fair there's still the once per round limit of using it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text itself says that you can make a second attack of opportunity. Abilities generally don't say "you can make another attack" without actually granting you the ability to make said attack. Rapid Shot, for example, doesn't require you to have another iterative left in order to make use of it. You get an immediate second attack of opportunity at -5, full stop. This covers both 1 & 2.Rapid Shot doesn't involve AoO rules in its effects. Therefore, no one questions how Rapid Shot works in a full attack.
Even then, Rapid Shot says it's an extra attack, which is in addition to other attacks being made, so its language is much more precise, and doesn't come with added baggage, unlike here, making it a bad example.
The fact of the matter is that you can't justify the property being its own exception to the general rule, that everything else has to follow, especially when the opposite reading (the property is not an exception) is equally valid and has more RAW support for it in comparison.
But just for fun, here's a question: If we followed your interpretation, and still had someone with Combat Reflexes use the weapon, would you really let them effectively double the amount of AoOs they could make in a round? Because that's basically what you're allowing to happen. Reach users just became a lot less MAD if that's the case, and heaven forbid that a Swashbuckler can both parry an attack and follow up with one (or even two) attacks against everyone that dares attack him, and be able to do that up to 13 times without even trying!
I would allow them to make one extra attack of opportunity at a -5 penalty, once per round, as the description allows. So cool it with the melodrama.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. (I did not know that.)
Let's change the title and un-jinx it, then.
Only Paizo can change the thread title.
And to be fair to you, the “rule” that Rules Question thread titles shouldn’t contain requests/demands for FAQs is no longer in the guidelines sticky thread.