Ryan Freire wrote: Read the FAQ.
Movement is one event that provokes you don't take your movement in 5" increments.
Casting is a separate event from the ranged attack.
Also...read the FAQ
Each time you move out of a threatened square is a different "event" that provokes an aoo the movement is one action, combat reflex users can not make more than one aoo against a target moving threw their threatened squares despite there being multiple "events" that trigger aoos. Casting ranges attack spell is one action, with multiple "events" that cause an aoo to be triggered a user of combat reflexes can only make one attack on the target despite multiple "events" that cause and aoo to be triggered. Now if the target casts a ranged spell and then also moves out of your threated area you would then be able to make 2 aoos on the target from 2 actions that cause a aoos to be triggered but have multiple "events" from both that would trigger aoos. This is done so people using combat reflexes can get 7+ aoos on a target just because there are multiple "events" that trigger aoos what they need is multiple actions that have events that aoos to be triggered to get those multiple attacks.
In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct?
Casting a spell gets an AoO.
Making a ranged attack gets an AoO.
2 different things getting 2 different AoO.
Moving gets one. 1 thing getting 1 AoO.
It isn't that hard.
Cavall wrote: Casting a spell gets an AoO.
Making a ranged attack gets an AoO.
2 different things getting 2 different AoO.
Moving gets one. 1 thing getting 1 AoO.
It isn't that hard.
And casting a spell that does a ranged attack get an aoo it may fall under 2 categories but its 1 action per aoo.
Ok so you're saying if I cast scorching ray and get 3 bolts and send them off to 3 different people that's only 1 attack of opportunity? Because its "1 action?"
Shiroi wrote: In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct? Because there are plenty of faq's that get written for stupid reasons there are also plenty of people wanting faq's to be written for stupid reasons, all the faq does is clarify yes this thing provokes twice that does not mean people get 2 attacks vs it. A ranged character who full attacks with a bow gets 1 aoo on them despite making 4+ ranged attacks(4+ events that provoke an aoo) because its 1 action 1 aoo.
Cavall wrote: Ok so you're saying if I cast scorching ray and get 3 bolts and send them off to 3 different people that's only 1 attack of opportunity? Because its "1 action?" Yes because that's how it works. Otherwise you would be attacking the caster 4+ times due to it being multiple attacks and a spell cast. Now its still 1 aoo per person so if there are multiple people in threat range each one would get 1 aoo but even if they have combat reflexes they would still only get 1 aoo until the person does something else to provoke an aoo like running away or some how using a move action to drink a potion.
doomman47 wrote: Shiroi wrote: In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct? Because there are plenty of faq's that get written for stupid reasons there are also plenty of people wanting faq's to be written for stupid reasons, all the faq does is clarify yes this thing provokes twice that does not mean people get 2 attacks vs it. A ranged character who full attacks with a bow gets 1 aoo on them despite making 4+ ranged attacks(4+ events that provoke an aoo) because its 1 action 1 aoo. ... So your argument that you're right is that people who aren't you are stupid? Yeah I think we're done here.
Ok this is gunna blow your mind but... no... you'd get 4 AoO.
Because any one stupid enough to not cast defensively AND make 3 ranged attacks beside someone gets what he gets.
Cavall wrote: Ok this is gunna blow your mind but... no... you'd get 4 AoO.
Because any one stupid enough to not cast defensively AND make 3 ranged attacks beside someone gets what he gets.
Except you don't you get 1 aoo per person with in threat range. "Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack" you would need to be threatened by 4 different opponents to risk 4 aoos from casting scorching ray.
Shiroi wrote: doomman47 wrote: Shiroi wrote: In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct? Because there are plenty of faq's that get written for stupid reasons there are also plenty of people wanting faq's to be written for stupid reasons, all the faq does is clarify yes this thing provokes twice that does not mean people get 2 attacks vs it. A ranged character who full attacks with a bow gets 1 aoo on them despite making 4+ ranged attacks(4+ events that provoke an aoo) because its 1 action 1 aoo. ... So your argument that you're right is that people who aren't you are stupid? Yeah I think we're done here. Not even close the point was stupid things get selected for faq and errata's all the time and just because an Faq "clarifies"(because even with an faq things some times aren't clarified and are even made more confusing to the player base afterwards) something as the way many people interpreted it as doing doesn't change how it functions.
It would be better to start a new topic for this conversation, it's not close to the OP.
Casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, making a ranged attack provokes an attack of opportunity. Shooting 3 rays provokes both for the casting and for the attack. Since all 3 rays fire out at the same time it provokes twice. Once on cast, and once when the rays are shot. It does NOT provoke for each ray fired.
On the other hand, making a full attack with a Bow provokes for every attack made. Since these attacks do not happen simultaneously, each attack provokes as they are made.
Dont derail the thread with rules bickering.
To the topic.
Tell your players to grow up.
For all I read he plays a normal kinetic and I have seen a minmaxed one.And in all honesty Kinetics are a good class but far from broken.
I have seen zen archers, bloodragers and sorcerer where your player would vomit.
Explain your players that he plays a middle in the road kinetic with strong early that falls of later.
If their inferior complex cant handle this I suggest a pacifier
doomman47 wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Read the FAQ.
Movement is one event that provokes you don't take your movement in 5" increments.
Casting is a separate event from the ranged attack.
Also...read the FAQ
Each time you move out of a threatened square is a different "event" that provokes an aoo the movement is one action, combat reflex users can not make more than one aoo against a target moving threw their threatened squares despite there being multiple "events" that trigger aoos. Casting ranges attack spell is one action, with multiple "events" that cause an aoo to be triggered a user of combat reflexes can only make one attack on the target despite multiple "events" that cause and aoo to be triggered. Now if the target casts a ranged spell and then also moves out of your threated area you would then be able to make 2 aoos on the target from 2 actions that cause a aoos to be triggered but have multiple "events" from both that would trigger aoos. This is done so people using combat reflexes can get 7+ aoos on a target just because there are multiple "events" that trigger aoos what they need is multiple actions that have events that aoos to be triggered to get those multiple attacks. No, its not, you don't understand the rules to the game, Read the FAQ. Read the FAQ, read the faq, ReaDtheFAQ
I will say, for the OP, judging things by first level is not a good way to go.
Hybrid classes won't even do much til 3rd yo get some basic tricks to flesh out what full martials and casters are enjoying at 1st.
Give it a few levels.
Ryan Freire wrote: No, its not, you don't understand the rules to the game, Read the FAQ. Read the FAQ, read the faq, ReaDtheFAQ How about you read the faq; The faq is not allowing people to get multiple aoos from the same action, it is stating the 1 action has provoked an aoo in multiple areas. Meaning the person using the ability needs to find more work arounds to not be hit by an aoo when they use the ability not that they get hit multiple times for doing that single action.
doomman47 wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: No, its not, you don't understand the rules to the game, Read the FAQ. Read the FAQ, read the faq, ReaDtheFAQ How about you read the faq; The faq is not allowing people to get multiple aoos from the same action, it is stating the 1 action has provoked an aoo in multiple areas. Meaning the person using the ability needs to find more work arounds to not be hit by an aoo when they use the ability not that they get hit multiple times for doing that single action. The rules on attacks of opportunity wrote: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat 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. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus. Notice how movement is specifically talked about, and then how they specifically say if the same opponent provokes 2 attacks of opportunity from you you can make two separate attacks of opportunity, since each one represents a different opportunity?
Kind of like how both casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, and making a ranged attack while threatened in melee provokes an attack of opportunity.
Ryan Freire wrote: doomman47 wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: No, its not, you don't understand the rules to the game, Read the FAQ. Read the FAQ, read the faq, ReaDtheFAQ How about you read the faq; The faq is not allowing people to get multiple aoos from the same action, it is stating the 1 action has provoked an aoo in multiple areas. Meaning the person using the ability needs to find more work arounds to not be hit by an aoo when they use the ability not that they get hit multiple times for doing that single action. The rules on attacks of opportunity wrote: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat 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. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus. Notice how movement is specifically talked about, and then how they specifically say if the same opponent provokes 2 attacks of opportunity from you you can make two separate attacks of opportunity, since each one represents a different opportunity?
Kind of like how both casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, and making a ranged attack while threatened in melee provokes an attack of opportunity. Just because an act provokes an aoo at multiple angles doesn't mean the opponent gets to actually make multiple aoos on the person who is doing the act, the ability may provoke multiple times but they still only get 1 attack of opportunity for said action.
Thats literally what the rule says. Backed up by the FAQ.
Ryan Freire wrote: Thats literally what the rule says. Backed up by the FAQ. There is only 1 item in game that allows multiple attacks for the same action that provokes and aoo unless they have that item it doesn't matter how aoos an ability provokes they still only get 1 attack on the target.
You literally have to ignore the core rulebook and the FAQ to take that position.
Ryan Freire wrote: You literally have to ignore the core rulebook and the FAQ to take that position. Not in the slightest, the item allows for a 2nd attack at a -5 when vs the person who did an action that provokes its once per round and is the only way in game to get a second attack vs a person for an action that provokes. Like with all things in this game once there is a feat or an item that allows you to do something you can not do that thing outside of having that feat or item there for unless you have this one item you can not make multiple attacks vs an opponent on an aoo for the same action.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
We're not talking about items. We're talking about how Casting a spell is a separate attack of opportunity trigger from making a ranged attack in melee.
You are not making two attacks for the same trigger. You're making one attack for the trigger of casting a spell, and one attack for the trigger of making a ranged attack in melee.
AOO's are not "action" limited. They are trigger limited. As evidenced by the rules pointing out that if you provoke two separate attacks of opportunity, one can be made against each provocation. This is supported by the faq linked.
Moving within a threatened space is 1 trigger, regardless of the number of squares you move because you don't break squares up into a series of 5 foot movements without a feat or something changing it. You take all the movement at once and 1 aoo for it.
However casting a spell in melee is a DIFFERENT trigger from making a ranged attack in melee. With combat reflexes you make one attack of opportunity at each trigger.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Don't bother Ryan, best case scenario the guy is arguing for sport. There's no way he could actually hold the positions he's defended in this thread.
Ryan Freire wrote: We're not talking about items. We're talking about how Casting a spell is a separate attack of opportunity trigger from making a ranged attack in melee.
You are not making two attacks for the same trigger. You're making one attack for the trigger of casting a spell, and one attack for the trigger of making a ranged attack in melee.
AOO's are not "action" limited. They are trigger limited. As evidenced by the rules pointing out that if you provoke two separate attacks of opportunity, one can be made against each provocation. This is supported by the faq linked.
Moving within a threatened space is 1 trigger, regardless of the number of squares you move because you don't break squares up into a series of 5 foot movements without a feat or something changing it. You take all the movement at once and 1 aoo for it.
However casting a spell in melee is a DIFFERENT trigger from making a ranged attack in melee. With combat reflexes you make one attack of opportunity at each trigger.
It's the same trigger a ranged spell in melee, its not like they are casting a spell then shooting a bow at melee that would be 2 different actions warranting 2 aoos, this just happens to be an action that falls into multiple categories meaning its more difficult for the user to not provoke. They still only take 1 aoo per person in the threatened area because it's 1 trigger.
SlammAndrewz wrote: I know full well that won't last forever. To put this into perspective, I'm about to bring into a game a PC in heavy armor that strikes with +8 to hit for 2d8+18 damage just because it sits on a horse, and it can hit for 3d6+9 off the horse with its backup weapon. The damage skyrockets as it levels too. This what a decent DPR PC does.
Oh, and it will be a gish with almost full spellcasting.
Not to be rude but your PC isn't worth note outside of its fluff; not because of your build, but because it's a kineticist so it *can't compete* with even moderately-capable DPR. Like others have said, 'high floor, low ceiling'.
It has no Power Attack, lance charging, Vital Strike, Manyshot, or even basic magic weapons.
It has 'I'm a weaker 3.5 warlock that has to deal with immunities, doesn't always hit touch, has no good invocations, with lower range, using typed damage, punches itself in the face to use blast shapes and essences, and has no PrC options worth talking about'.
Then consider, for reasons listed here about the kineticist: Warlock was viewed as an underpowered boredom trap.
Your other players need to accept that they can't make something like a goddess-damned bladed brush swashbuckling mid-game Shelynite and strut around doing notable damage while tanking. They knew what they were doing and need to grow up and accept the early-game they signed up for.
So that PC I mentioned? Hitting that hard? It's level 1. My point is that you shouldn't have a lead *now*.
Stupid question because it always comes up as a point in favor of the class being weak.
How's the player dealing with the Burn?
MerlinCross wrote: Stupid question because it always comes up as a point in favor of the class being weak.
How's the player dealing with the Burn?
So I'm not the player or GM, but I think I can answer this one. They're level 2. They only have two things to spend burn on (infusion and defense). They only need to spend one point on defense and gather power can negate any cost from the infusion. So they're not dealing with burn. Not yet anyway.
Falkyron wrote: SlammAndrewz wrote: I know full well that won't last forever. Not to be rude but your PC isn't worth note outside of its fluff; not because of your build, but because it's a kineticist so it *can't compete* with even moderately-capable DPR. Like others have said, 'high floor, low ceiling'.
They knew what they were doing and need to grow up and accept the early-game they signed up for. Oh yeah, for sure. I honestly don't care if I'm the party's leading damage dealer or most ineffective member. I literally just wanted to make this character because it seemed like the one I wanted to play. I'm happy he's built well enough to play as, though as others have mentioned theres not a huge amount of mistakes you can make with Kineticist so the potential to screw it up was quite low.
The party will get over it, and will soon see the character is in-line with everything else.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: MerlinCross wrote: Stupid question because it always comes up as a point in favor of the class being weak.
How's the player dealing with the Burn?
So I'm not the player or GM, but I think I can answer this one. They're level 2. They only have two things to spend burn on (infusion and defense). They only need to spend one point on defense and gather power can negate any cost from the infusion. So they're not dealing with burn. Not yet anyway. Completely correct. So far, I've not needed to utilize burn to much other than the shield bonus. Due to playing the blood kineticist archetype, my first level infusion is 0 burn, so I've not needed to worry about that as of yet.
That said I know as I level up that will change, and when it comes to managing burn I'll just have to know when to and when not to use it. I've come to pathfinder from quite a heavy fighting games background, and have always enjoyed playing characters who take damage to deal it (Think Lucario in Smash Bros) so from that mindset I'm prepared to take risks to gain reward, and if it all goes wrong, then heyho! It's just a game :)
|
