I don't think he will get two reposition manuevers, but I do think he would get two reposition attempts and be able to take the better of them.
In essence, they would both 'reposition' based on where the target was when the triggering effect happened, and he could then choose which one he preferred to use.
The two effects in question.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Reposition, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can move your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may move your opponent as if from the reposition combat maneuver. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Normal: You must perform a reposition combat maneuver to reposition an opponent.
Special: You can only apply the effects of one of the following feats to a given critical hit: Bull Rush Strike, Disarming Strike, Repositioning Strike, Sundering Strike, or Tripping Strike. You may choose to use this feat after you make your confirmation roll.
========
@Lucy_Valentine
I think that if you had Greater Reposition the movement from Repositioning Strike would still provoke, since such feats often refer to if the user of the feat provokes or not by taking the action.
========
@Dave Justus
While that is a reasonable houserule if they happened at the same time, the movement from Repositioning Strike happens as part of confirming the critical hit, while the maneuver from Repositioning is done as a free action after the critical hit is confirmed.
A reposition free action when you confirm and a reposition that occurs when you confirm are the same time as far as I am concerned. Two ways of saying the same thing. The both happen as part of the attack.
Bottom line, a reposition is moving someone from X squarewhere they are, to Y square where they are not.
Both repositions have the X square being where they are when they were hit, because the hit is the cause of the attempt being granted. You can't substitute the Y of one ability for the original X of another. Both abilities are trying to move the target from the same spot, only one can be successful.
Pathfinder sometimes does have a tendency to call things 'free actions' when they should be riders to another action that are not an action in and of themselves at all. It is a way for them to communicate that it doesn't cost any other type of action, but many of the rules of a free action don't really apply to them (for example, this type of 'free action' shouldn't limited based on having done other free actions in a turn.) In any event, since free actions don't take any time at all, it is hard to see how even if it was a regular free action that would make it occur at a different time.
Also, when someone is making an argument about how they believe the rules work, saying it is a 'houserule' is pretty unfair. I believe it is the rule. Certainly I could be incorrect, but just calling it a houserule isn't a convincing argument.
Also, when someone is making an argument about how they believe the rules work, saying it is a 'houserule' is pretty unfair. I believe it is the rule. Certainly I could be incorrect, but just calling it a houserule isn't a convincing argument.
To be fair, your previous post didn't back up the statement in any way. I honestly thought you explained how you would rule it, since there wasn't any referring to precedents or rules.
But yeah, then it was quite rude. Apologies.
======
Both repositions have the X square being where they are when they were hit, because the hit is the cause of the attempt being granted. You can't substitute the Y of one ability for the original X of another. Both abilities are trying to move the target from the same spot, only one can be successful.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning.
A reposition maneuver allows you to move an enemy relative to your reach. Nothing forces you to direct your maneuver at a specific square, such as the case with Overrun.
However, I do acknowledge that PF has redundant text sometimes, and I don't think it would break anything to do it the other way.
Yup. Every single ability that somehow interacts with maneuvers seems to have to explain if they provoke or not. The default should just be that an ability doesn't provoke, and that exceptions are pointed out.
Here, compare Disarming Strike to Repositioning Strike. It's redundant and a waste of space, but they are actually referring to the user of the feat.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can disarm your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may disarm your opponent as if from the disarm combat maneuver. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Normal: You must perform a disarm combat maneuver to disarm an opponent.
Special: You can only apply the effects of one of the following feats to a given critical hit
Just because they use different rolls to determine the result, doesn't mean that they don't happen at the same time. Both are as a result of the critical and happen at that time. You hit them which, because you have a special ability, might cause them to move. In this case you have 2 effects that might cause them to move, but the position they are 'repositioning' from is the same, so only one is going to be able to apply.
Both effects have to target the creature where he is when the hit that triggered them is made, so only one can apply. You can't both move me from your front to you right and move me from your front to your left, it has to be one or the other. And you can't wait for one to 'resolve' and move from there, because both effects have already triggered.
How are you measuring time, here? Measuring time in seconds and minutes is pretty much meaningless, since this is a fantasy-makebelieve game, and none of it really happens at all!
I suppose if you want to go with the argument that it is all make believe so it isn't subject to analysis and we can't know anything about it I will have to bow out of the argument.
Assuming you are being genuine in your question though, while there are several ways of measuring time in the game, in this case I am talking about the action and its effects all being one thing that happens at the same time. The fact that the player is rolling dice in a sequence to determine the effect (making an attack roll then confirming a critical then rolling a miss chance then rolling weapon damage then rolling sneak attack damage and then rolling for a reposition as an example) doesn't mean that these things happen one after another in game. The total result of these sequential out of game steps are what is used to generate the effect of that discrete attack in game. A wolf doesn't bite you and then trip you, he trips you by biting you.
To move on you are mistaken in thinking that one is triggered by a threatened roll and one is triggered by a confirming a critical hit, and perhaps that is part of the confusion.
'Score a critical hit' means 'successfully confirms a critical theat' it is just two ways of saying the same thing.
Obviously you can reposition a target that has been repositioned before and obviously you can make multiple repositions in a round. If you just had one of those effects (to make it simpler) you could crit on your first attack, reposition them and then crit on a second attack and reposition them. No problem at all.
With 2 effects based one triggering action though, two effects that are intrinsically opposed (you are either moving them to square A or you are moving them to square B) you have to choose one. You can't reposition them to A and then to B with this, because both effects are based on moving them from square X (where they were when the hit occurred) and one would move them from X to A and the other for X to B. X to A to B isn't an option.
Anyway, that is how I see it. I won't respond further unless you indicate you would like me to explain something that isn't clear, rather than just disagreeing with it.
But yeah, then it was quite rude. Apologies.Since when did you start apologizing for being rude? New Year's Resolution?
Me? Rude?
You must be mistaking me for VVonderstell, that lowborn cur!
I'm like the poster boy for civil discourse; I've never offended anyone in my whole life!
======
Anyway, that is how I see it. I won't respond further unless you indicate you would like me to explain something that isn't clear, rather than just disagreeing with it.
I don't think this discussion will go anywhere.
You've explained your reasoning but you've yet to provide a rule supporting your idea of intrinsically opposed effects, or that all effects happen at the same time. This makes it exceedingly hard to argue against, since all we're doing then is voicing opinions.
Ok, despite what I said I will try one more time, because there doesn't seem to be understanding my argument. If it is understood, but just not agreed with I apologize, but I haven't seen any refutation other than 'show me a specific rule that says you can't.'
First off, I will admit that Paizo has given no clarification on how this should interact if you have these two powers. It has to be interpreted. You are interpreting in one way, and I am interpreting it another.
Here is my contention in a nutshell.
You have two powers that both say when you confirm a critical you can attempt to move them from where they are to somewhere else (that it what a reposition is). The methods for determining if you succeed on the reposition are different, but the effect, a reposition, is the same. The 'where they are' is the same for both. Since you can't move them from 'where they are' to two different places, and neither one can change the 'where they are' for the other, since that is based on where they are when the abilities are triggered, you have to choose. You can't use the results of one as the 'where they are' for the second.
If you had an ability that said on repositioning you could do another reposition that would be fine, since the 'where they are' for the second would be based on their location after the first, but that isn't what you have.
Let's say we have a character with the Upsetting Strike and One-Handed Weapon Tricks feats. Both feats provide an AoO with the same trigger.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Combat Reflexes, Improved Shield Bash, Upsetting Shield Style, proficiency with bucklers.
Benefit: While you are using Upsetting Shield Style, if a foe is taking a penalty on attack rolls against you as a result of Upsetting Shield Style, and that foe makes a melee attack roll against you that misses your AC by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. You can only make one attack of opportunity against an opponent in this manner each round.
Since they have the same trigger, the enemy is provoking both AoOs simultaneously.
My opinion is that the character would be able to take both AoOs, and that the second attack would benefit from any conditions my first attack applied. So if I tripped the enemy with my first attack, the enemy would suffer a -4 penalty to AC against my second attack.
I say this because if I'm able to take both AoOs, then it is impossible for them to occur at the same time. So we have to decide in which order to make these attacks, and they are considered to have happened in a chronological order since that's how time usually works.
This is my opinion, and as you say, I can't provide a rule that supports or disprove my statement.
But this is why I believe you can make both repositions, since unless otherwise stated everything is done in a chronological order. After the first maneuver is over, you simply check to see if you still fulfill the conditions for making the second maneuver, and then roll to reposition.
That the enemy now has moved location doesn't matter, because this maneuver is made after the first one and we simply need them within reach to make our maneuver as per the normal rules.
========
While you've come to the conclusion that "both effects can't happen at the same time, so only one would remain", my own conclusion is that "both effects can't happen at the same time, so they don't".
It's pretty hard to go anywhere further after we've both stated those opinions, and I'm not gonna force you to share my view.
I'm all for starting a FAQ about actions that arguable happen at exact same time, such as the example with Stylish Riposte/Upsetting Strike.
But that's not what's happening here.
If the character had True Strike cast on themselves before making the critical hit, the confirmation roll reposition would benefit from the +20 bonus since it's part of the attack. The weapon ability reposition however, would never benefit from that True Strike bonus since it's a completely separate attack roll with it's own action made after the first reposition.
Saying anything else is arguing against both RAW and RAI, and I'm honestly not sure how this ever came to be questioned since it's right there black on white.
It's not a case of "the rules don't say I can't!" stubbornness, but the exact opposite. The rules explicitly allows us to make two repositions, and if you want to argue otherwise please provide a rule that supports your claim.