|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your players are conveniently missing the hyphenated 1 on the Attack of opportunity column:
1 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.
The charge doesn't provoke, but the charging creature moving out of the threatened square still provokes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello all,
Is there any official clarification for the rules on Attacks of Opportunity on a charging opponent?
E.g. guard with longsword charges a PC who has a reach weapon.
My playgroup can't reach a consensus and won't take forum advise unless it's "official Paizo" thus currently playing without AOO if there is a charge.
There's arguments for and against e.g. Shining Knight example or the fact that charging from vines explicitly says that it triggers attacks of opportunity but is otherwise treated as a charge, implying that the charge doesn't.
Same with the table where it says that the charging action does not trigger, the argument is that "charging is a full-round action that includes movement" and the table says that this action does not provoke.
Again, they won't take forum discussions as an argument, looking for any official FAQ or answer?
I am aware of the table that has an annotation that says that movement provokes, but that same table says that charging does not.
The shining knight example shows that charge normally provokes:
At 11th level, whenever a mounted shining knight charges a foe, her movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, for either her or her mount.
else the above is useless text.
I do not know what you mean by "charging from vines explicitly says that it triggers attacks of opportunity but is otherwise treated as a charge". What ability or feat is this referencing, from what class/archetype?
Regarding the (1) footnote, can they provide any examples where an action includes movement where the action itself says no, but this footnote for movement should apply? Because if they believe everything associated with charge means no AoO, why would that same logic not apply to all other actions that say "no" on the AoO for the action as well? Which would make this footnote quite useless. Or do they believe that the "Run" action provokes twice? Once because you used a run action, and again because you moved during the run action?
...won't take forum advise unless it's "official Paizo"...
Honestly? If you have the option, dump this group. That's like saying "I won't take any advice from a 40 years practicing electrician because he is not Nikola Tesla". Or, "I don't care if you have a PhD in physics, you can't tell me how gravity works because you're not Isaac Newton."
If there is a evenly divided opinion on how a rule works in the rules forum, that is one thing. There won't be on this issue though. You'll get consensus (or near consensus) from a lot of regulars on this forum who enjoy studying and hashing out the rules and how they work in the minutest of details. eg, they are experts in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) If charging doesn't provoke then why does Ride by Attack explicitly say 8t doesn't provoke from the target of the attack?
2) Are the members of this group really better at reading the rules than 97% of the users of this forum? Wonder why there is no faq on this? Because very few folks have asked the question, and the devs have never disputed the consensus answer.
3) Second paragraph of Attacks of Opportjnity (crb combat chapter) mentions that there are two common methods for avoiding movement AoOs, withdrawal and 5' step. No mention of charge.
Those are, in no particular order, my three thoughts.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you have a group (or at least some members of the group) who are determined to read things in the way that is most advantageous for them. In which case there is nothing you can say to absolutely convince them. They will continue to split hairs, deliberately misread, and ignore the parts of the text that they don't want to apply.
It's extremely straightforward:
1. Charge allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack.
2. 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.
Or how to get an official response or anything on FAQ's?
This just isn't going to happen. There hasn't been a designer response on 1E in over two years. Even at peak designer engagement, a question like this would always get dismissed as "No FAQ required" since the answer is blindingly obvious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm backing the other answers.
Movement (out of a threatened square) provokes, unless it explicitly says it does not.
I say take advantage of it, play Giantslayer, make a Pouncing Alchemist/Barbarian or something and charge all the giants.
Charging Barbarian with taunting stance and a reach weapon, high dex, and combat reflexes. You may not reach the end of your charge, but you got 6 hits off on your way there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or When your wizard is surrounded by Ogres, have the wizard charge your party's barbarian and attack with an unarmed strike instead of withdrawing, since apparently charging makes you more immune to attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, don't charge your own barbarian, make a charge attack against a wall, or the invisible enemy you suspect is in that square over there, you know the one that is conveniently next to the spot you want to end up in.
I will also say the group is trying to "game" the system by deliberately misreading the rules. Question, does your group have Full Attacks from Ranged Weapons provoke AOO? Full Attack says "No" to AOO. I still remember a forum discussion on the old WOTC boards were there was someone arguing that rule (that full ranged attacks don't provoke). EVERYBODY else was telling him he was wrong, but he would not listen.
Honestly, the confusion revolving around Charge and Attacks of Opportunity largely stem from people asking the wrong question all the time... Instead of asking "Does charge provoke or not?" the question really needs to be asked "At what point does a charge NOT provoke?"
We all know that the movement during a charge still provokes. The rules are quite clear on that... though many groups debate it simply because the table lists charging as not provoking. The reason these debates happen is because nearly everything else on that table that says it does not provoke is a special type of an action that normally does provoke. Since charging is just a combination movement + attack action, people come to the logical conclusion that it must be the movement portion of charging that doesn't provoke, despite the rules stating otherwise. After all, why else would it be listed as an action that doesn't provoke if the only part of it that even could have provoked in the first place still provokes? Melee attacks don't provoke, movement does provoke, and that's all there is to a charge, so why list it as an action that doesn't provoke?
The only comparable action on the list that also is listed as NO to provoking, but still provokes from movement out of threatened spaces is the Withdraw action... Which doesn't provoke for the first 5 feet of movement. Now, if charging is meant to function like Withdraw in regards to provoking, then it makes sense to list it as No, while still actually provoking from movement as normal. But then it's a matter of if it's the start of the charge or the end of the charge where the non-provoking movement should be occurring.
Honestly, the confusion revolving around Charge and Attacks of Opportunity largely stem from people asking the wrong question all the time... Instead of asking "Does charge provoke or not?" the question really needs to be asked "At what point does a charge NOT provoke?"
We all know that the movement during a charge still provokes. The rules are quite clear on that... though many groups debate it simply because the table lists charging as not provoking. The reason these debates happen is because nearly everything else on that table that says it does not provoke is a special type of an action that normally does provoke. Since charging is just a combination movement + attack action, people come to the logical conclusion that it must be the movement portion of charging that doesn't provoke, despite the rules stating otherwise. After all, why else would it be listed as an action that doesn't provoke if the only part of it that even could have provoked in the first place still provokes? Melee attacks don't provoke, movement does provoke, and that's all there is to a charge, so why list it as an action that doesn't provoke?
The only comparable action on the list that also is listed as NO to provoking, but still provokes from movement out of threatened spaces is the Withdraw action... Which doesn't provoke for the first 5 feet of movement. Now, if charging is meant to function like Withdraw in regards to provoking, then it makes sense to list it as No, while still actually provoking from movement as normal. But then it's a matter of if it's the start of the charge or the end of the charge where the non-provoking movement should be occurring.
But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?
So here's the text about movement provoking attacks of opportunity:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and .
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: as you divert your attention from the battle. .Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.
So I've colour-coded the important sections slightly.
In the table it would be:
*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.
So even though the action itself doesn't provoke , the movement does .
For reach weapon users, this means that someone trying to move toward you would provoke unless they themselves have reach. If they move from your threatened square (10 feet away) to another square (adjacent, for example), you get an AoO.
That's all from the rulebook, just colour-coded to help. See if that makes it clearer.
Other than that - it really doesn't matter all that much if it does or doesn't provoke, provided it's consistent (and provided everyone knows how it's being ruled). If they won't change then I say just go with it and adjust your tactics accordingly.
|
|
Eh, don't charge your own barbarian, make a charge attack against a wall, or the invisible enemy you suspect is in that square over there, you know the one that is conveniently next to the spot you want to end up in.
You must see the target to charge.
(I know you are making a sarcastic comment, but with this level of rule misreading, it is better not to make it worse.)
Good call on line of sight and charge, thank you. So charge attacks against walls, furniture and floors it is.
But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?
Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion... since the conditions for provoking AoO on a charge are dependent on the two other actions that make up the charge action itself... my whole point in my post was that the table listing it as not provoking is the very source of many peoples confusion, since it’s status as not provoking on that table actually means nothing... movement still provokes as does using an unarmed strike or CMB at the end of your charge without the improved feats or similar abilities... since the charge ability itself doesn’t have any special rules regarding not provoking from the target or from the starting point or anything else like that it just creates unnecessary confusion.
I mean... really if the table simply didn’t include charging, I’m sure everyone would just look at the rules for provoking on movement and agree with no debate that charging through threatened squares provokes... threads like this, and groups like the OPs wouldn’t pop up since there would be no cause for confusion...
But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion...
I completely agree with you Chell.
I was enjoying poking fun at them for being "Teh Stoopid'" but when I actually looked at it I couldn't think of anything to point them at to improve the situation. I can honestly understand why they think the way they do.
To be clear I DO think the rules are clear, but only if you know how to put them all together (and not everyone does).
|
|
But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion...I completely agree with you Chell.
If you remove the charge from that table, you remove it from the table that says what kind of action it is. Perfect move to increase the confusion.
Charge becomes a Special attack and people glancing at the text without really reading it will be even more confused.You will see people saying that they can charge as many times as they can make attacks, people saying that it is a special attack, so it counts as an attack action, and so on.
The table isn't "what provokes", it is Table 8–2: Actions in Combat. If the action provokes or not is part of the information it gives, but the first and foremost part is that it says under what kind of action fall what you do.
The act of performing a charge as a full round action (or standard) does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The act of moving out of a threatened square does provoke though. The Acts of "Performing a Charge as a Full Round Action" and "Moving out of a Threatened Square" are considered two separate events, and one provokes while the other does not.
So if you're the PC and you want to charge the BBEG, you would not provoke an AoO from E1 for initiating a Charge action, but you would provoke an AoO for moving out of a square that E1 threatens, and then you would provoke 1 AoO from E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 on the way to the BBEG because you're moving out of squares that they threaten.
PC.E1
...E2
...E3
...E4
...E5
...E6
BBEG
The only way to move out of Threatened Squares without provoking is via the 5-ft step and the Withdraw action.
The reason that they put "Charge" as "No" on that table is so that GM's know what provokes AoO vs. what doesn't, because one singular action can have several provokes. Such as Casting a Spell that makes a Ranged Touch Attack = 1 single action that provokes 2 AoOs, and each of these AoO provokes are treated as their own separate event that get resolved separately.
As far as the Mounted Shining Knight example that was proffered upthread, compared to the PC, E1-E6, and BBEG example here in this post, the Knight's action of Initiating a Charge would not provoke, and nor would the Knight's Movement out of Threatened Squares past Enemies 1 thru 6 provoke, as this is a specific rule that trumps the general rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately they are not missing it, I pointed it out to them, but the group reads charge as a "full round action that includes movement", that movement is part of the action and as it says "no" to AOO they think it doesn't.
The players either have have issues with the English language, or they're deliberately trying to cheat. The footnote says "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity." That sentence literally tells you that what is part of the action and what isn't is utterly irrelevant. That sentence tells you that for the moving out of a threatened area, the table entry for AoO doesn't matter at all.
The only valid argument that could be made would be regarding the word "usually", but the respective rules would destroy that one real quick. Any argument that is based on "the table says 'no'" is invalidated by the footnote.
And before anyone tries to (further) defend the players: If an action that says "no" on the table never provoked, there would be no reason for the "¹" footnote to exist. The existence of that footnote proves that the table entry alone cannot be the sole factor.
If you remove the charge from that table, you remove it from the table that says what kind of action it is. Perfect move to increase the confusion.But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion...I completely agree with you Chell.
Except that they already needed a sentence about how Charge works (standard action Charge is a thing), so that's described anyway.
<Charge> May be taken as a standard action if you are limited to taking only a single action in a round.
If they cut a line out of the table they' have room to add a line in that sentence that says "Charging is usually a Full-Round Action but ..."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you remove the charge from that table, you remove it from the table that says what kind of action it is. Perfect move to increase the confusion.But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion...I completely agree with you Chell.
Except that they already needed a sentence about how Charge works (standard action Charge is a thing), so that's described anyway.
<Charge> May be taken as a standard action if you are limited to taking only a single action in a round.If they cut a line out of the table they' have room to add a line in that sentence that says "Charging is usually a Full-Round Action but ..."
You have cut away the very relevant continuation of my post:
Charge becomes a Special attack and people glancing at the text without really reading it will be even more confused.
If we take the charitable interpretation, we are speaking of a table that has trouble reading the rules.
If we take the less charitable interpretation we are speaking of people that will try to misread the rules at every chance.In both instances, they will have or generate more problems because Charge would be under "Special attack".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love it when players try cheat the system. Lol. Little scoundrels...
Honestly, give them their "victory", because there is not a written rule that says;
"Contrary to the beliefs of certain morons, the movement made as part of a charge still provokes AoO, as normal."
So, they all think they have open season on charges. They all build Gorum worshipping, Scout Rogue dipping, Beast Totem Barbarians with Greatswords...
There is an absolute pletora of tactics to use against charging combatants... ways to position your enemies with readied Brace weapons, behind covered pits or other traps, difficult terrain, elevation, buffed with spells like Stunning Barrier, use of Crane Riposte or the OP&R Deed, illusions/more traps/natural hazards (have them charge right off a cliff, the big dummy)...
Lull the party into the false sense of security that charging is "safe"... let the hubris from their "victory" make them complacent and predictable...
If you remove the charge from that table, you remove it from the table that says what kind of action it is. Perfect move to increase the confusion.But if it said yes, the question would become who gets to make an AoO against the character charging? The tagret on the receiving end of the charge?Realistically charge could have simply been left off the table entirely and there would have been way less confusion...I completely agree with you Chell.
Except that the rules for charging spell out what type of action it is quite clearly.
Charge
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 198
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.
If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.
You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge. If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
So removal from the table doesn't have any impact on it's action type.
Charge becomes a Special attack and people glancing at the text without really reading it will be even more confused.
You will see people saying that they can charge as many times as they can make attacks, people saying that it is a special attack, so it counts as an attack action, and so on.
It's literally spelled out in the very first line for how charging works. Anyone trying to claim they don't understand what type of action a charge is or that they can make as many charges as they have attacks would be called out in an instant as deliberately misreading rules. So far into misreading that they aren't even reading the rules at all. Seven words, that's all that you have to read into the charge rules to know it is a full-round action, the first seven words.
The table isn't "what provokes", it is Table 8–2: Actions in Combat. If the action provokes or not is part of the information it gives, but the first and foremost part is that it says under what kind of action fall what you do.
Still the confusion on charge and AoOs stems from it's entry on that table saying that charging doesn't provoke, yet the only part of a charge that even could have provoked still provokes and there are no special rules for charging that prevent it from provoking at any specific points during the charge. Even if charge wasn't removed from the table entirely, a different entry into the AoO column would have made it far less confusing. The entry of "No" makes people think it doesn't provoke at some point, but an entry of "Yes" would make someone think that the attack at the end provokes, they could have done something like "N/A" or "—" or even "Yes/No (See Move/Attack (Melee))" Anything other than just "No" or "Yes"... Of course the Full Attack entry directly above it should have the same sort of non-answer entry given that it's conditional AoO provoking depending on melee or range is answered in the standard action section, rendering it's "No" entry equally moot...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, give them their "victory", because there is not a written rule that says;
"Contrary to the beliefs of certain morons, the movement made as part of a charge still provokes AoO, as normal."
But it does. "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity." Regardless of the action means regardless of the action.
Still the confusion on charge and AoOs stems from it's entry on that table saying that charging doesn't provoke, yet the only part of a charge that even could have provoked still provokes (...)
The attack could provoke. You know, like combat maneuvers and ranged attacks do. It's not even far-fetched, as charging is a kind of reckless attack that leaves you open (as represented by the -2 AC).
Even if charge wasn't removed from the table entirely, a different entry into the AoO column would have made it far less confusing. The entry of "No" makes people think it doesn't provoke at some point, but an entry of "Yes" would make someone think that the attack at the end provokes, they could have done something like "N/A" or "—" or even "Yes/No (See Move/Attack (Melee))" Anything other than just "No" or "Yes"...
It's only "confusing" for people who either didn't read, or don't understand the footnote. That footnote basically changes every single "no" entry to "no, apart from moving out of threatened areas", and it's very clear and absolute about that. Regardless of the action means regardless of the action.
This thread strongly reminds me of people who, after an erratum added the line "This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess." to Pummeling Style, still tried to come up with ways to use a weapon with it. The issue was never lack of understanding, it was lack of accepting rules that they didn't like.
The act of performing a charge as a full round action (or standard) does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The act of moving out of a threatened square does provoke though. The Acts of "Performing a Charge as a Full Round Action" and "Moving out of a Threatened Square" are considered two separate events, and one provokes while the other does not.
While this is accurate for charge, and thus accurate for the table to say "No" on charge. This same line of reasoning does have problems for other actions on the table - namely the Run action, which says "Yes".
Does taking a Run action provoke once, and then moving as a result of that run action provoke a second time as they are separate acts? I don't believe RAW or RAI here is that run would provoke twice. There is a distinction that a run action contains nothing but movement, while a charge is movement and an attack - which is why I think the table differs for these two types of actions, but that really isn't explained.
If I were to fix the rules text/table, I'd change charges entry to "See charge text" (or add another footnote entry on charge specifically). And in that explanatory text/footnote explain what we here all understand. The movement part of charge still provokes, but the attack at the end does not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell them it works both ways, and introduce to enemies with Pounce...
You don't get to make an AoO against the Allosaurus becauses it is charging you, too bad so sad.
You could make Gorum worshipping, Scout Rogue dipping, Beast Totem Barbarian NPC's with Greatswords. Lol.
Or, explain to them that cheating the system lessens to overall fun possible for everyone involved, and ask them nicely to quit being f***face @$$holes or politely GTFOH.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The act of performing a charge as a full round action (or standard) does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The act of moving out of a threatened square does provoke though. The Acts of "Performing a Charge as a Full Round Action" and "Moving out of a Threatened Square" are considered two separate events, and one provokes while the other does not.
While this is accurate for charge, and thus accurate for the table to say "No" on charge. This same line of reasoning does have problems for other actions on the table - namely the Run action, which says "Yes".
Does taking a Run action provoke once, and then moving as a result of that run action provoke a second time as they are separate acts? I don't believe RAW or RAI here is that run would provoke twice. There is a distinction that a run action contains nothing but movement, while a charge is movement and an attack - which is why I think the table differs for these two types of actions, but that really isn't explained.
If I were to fix the rules text/table, I'd change charges entry to "See charge text" (or add another footnote entry on charge specifically). And in that explanatory text/footnote explain what we here all understand. The movement part of charge still provokes, but the attack at the end does not.
Yeah that's a good argument, and I don't have a good rebuttal for why one is yes and the other is no. As far as I'm aware, initiating a Run action does not provoke twice, you just provoke once for the movement out of a threatened square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still the confusion on charge and AoOs stems from it's entry on that table saying that charging doesn't provoke, yet the only part of a charge that even could have provoked still provokes (...)The attack could provoke. You know, like combat maneuvers and ranged attacks do. It's not even far-fetched, as charging is a kind of reckless attack that leaves you open (as represented by the -2 AC).
Right, which is why a "Yes" in that column would have caused as much confusion as a "No".
Even if charge wasn't removed from the table entirely, a different entry into the AoO column would have made it far less confusing. The entry of "No" makes people think it doesn't provoke at some point, but an entry of "Yes" would make someone think that the attack at the end provokes, they could have done something like "N/A" or "—" or even "Yes/No (See Move/Attack (Melee))" Anything other than just "No" or "Yes"...It's only "confusing" for people who either didn't read, or don't understand the footnote. That footnote basically changes every single "no" entry to "no, apart from moving out of threatened areas", and it's very clear and absolute about that. Regardless of the action means regardless of the action.
The point Chell is trying to make isn't that the rule is actually fuzzy. The point is that there have been enough people over the years who - as you describe - "either didn't read, or don't understand the footnote" that it's clearly not just a problem with one group who are deliberately trying to misread the rules. If this were an isolated case it would be easy to dismiss them as cheaters, but it's happened before. Even if we can read and understand the table, clearly some people can't.
Obviously we're looking at this with hindsight, but there could have been another way to write this that would have avoided this confusion.
My advice: make a Primalist Aberrant Bloodrager, then trade out your 8th and 12th level Bloodline powers for the entire Beast Totem Rage Power line and the Come And Get Me Rage Rower. This means at 12th level you'll have Pounce and if an enemy charges you you can make an AoO against them anyway. The Bloodline gives you 10 foot reach at 4th level so you can make those "defensive" AoOs even when the enemy has a reach weapon or is Large.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you the GM? If so simply overrule the players. If not talk to the GM, if he is willing to listen to reason you are good. If he is not either accept that he has house ruled it, or find a different group. It may sound harsh but If you are not the GM it sounds like you are fighting a battle you will not win.
The difference as I have always understood it is not that run provokes twice, but that it provokes inherently. IOW, running provokes even if you do not leave a threatened square. In other other words, you provoke for running in to a threatened square.
I thought that was explained somewhere, but I cannot actually find it now. Maybe it was in 3.5?
_
glass.
If that was ever a ruling anywhere, I can assure you it wasn’t from 3.5… 3.5 and pathfinder have the exact same rules for running when it comes to combat…neither of which say anything about provoking for moving into a threatened space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure the confusion over Charge is *exactly* why the table has the first footnote.
To give an ounce of credit to the group (assuming they have older lineage of play) - this was an oft confused topic in 3.0/3.5 days. I think Ryan of 3.5PS/Know Direction mentioned having the rule wrong at one point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure the confusion over Charge is *exactly* why the table has the first footnote.
The problem with that thought is that the footnote is part of the cause of the confusion… it’s a simple logic loop…
The table says charging doesn’t provoke.
The footnote says movement usually always provokes regardless.
The rules for charge don’t call out any part of it as not provoking.
This creates the following logic loop.
Charging doesn’t provoke, but movement does provoke, the only part of charging that could provoke is movement, the table says it doesn’t provoke so charge movement must not provoke, but the footnote says movement still provokes, but the table says charge doesn’t provoke so logically movement must not provoke, but movement still provokes… (and that loops endlessly)
The logic loop creates confusion because it shouldn’t exist… but the way the table was written and the lack of any clarification within charge rules causes it to exist and because of that people get confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no loop. The movement is *not* the only part of charging that could provoke - as others noted above, it could easily provoke just like combat maneuvers do as you're opening yourself up.
Table says charging doesn't. Movement does. The rules for charge don't negate anything about the movement provoking. Done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no loop. The movement is *not* the only part of charging that could provoke - as others noted above, it could easily provoke just like combat maneuvers do as you're opening yourself up.
Table says charging doesn't. Movement does. The rules for charge don't negate anything about the movement provoking. Done.
Nor do the rules say anything about possibly preventing provoking from using a maneuver… which again… still creates a loop. People read the “no” on the table and expect there to be an explicit “doesn’t provoke when doing this” only for the footnote disrupt that expectation. So people try to find what part of a charge doesn’t provoke, only to find more parts that explicitly do infact provoke and that creates more confusion because the table clearly says it does not provoke.
You might not see the logic loop, but everyone who is confused on AoO and Charge do see it. The only other action that says no on that table but still provokes from movement outlines what part of the action doesn’t provoke in its own rules, while charge does no such thing.
I’m not saying this because the rules for charge confuses me, but because I understand why it is confusing to others. I understand perfectly well that the movement provokes. It’s simply that the way the table was written creates confusion for many out there… and it did confuse me as well as everyone in my group at first, it still does confuse many of the players in my group even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this were an isolated case it would be easy to dismiss them as cheaters, but it's happened before.
What, you think this group has a monopoly on cheating?
Even if we can read and understand the table, clearly some people can't.
Or maybe everyone understands it, but there're just a bunch of people out there who're trying to cheat. Maybe not in a fully relized way, but in a "I know this interpretation is unlikely but I'll still claim it in the hopes that I've found a loophole that makes my character better" way.
Like I said, it's like the Pummeling Style erratum. Everyone understood it, but not everyone accepted it, and thus some people tried to find loopholes. This is identical.
You and Chell Raighn keep talking about "confusion". What is confusing about the sentence "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity."? I think that sentence is clear as day.
People read the “no” on the table and expect there to be an explicit “doesn’t provoke when doing this” only for the footnote disrupt that expectation.
Why would they expect it? Other entries, like the regular attack action (in melee), don't have such text, either.
So people try to find what part of a charge doesn’t provoke, only to find more parts that explicitly do infact provoke and that creates more confusion because the table clearly says it does not provoke.
What do you mean "more parts that explicitly do infact provoke"? The exception added by the footnote is the only part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You and Chell Raighn keep talking about "confusion". What is confusing about the sentence "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity."?
The word "usually".
[You and Chell Raighn keep talking about "confusion". What is confusing about the sentence "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity."? I think that sentence is clear as day.
People read the “no” on the table and expect there to be an explicit “doesn’t provoke when doing this” only for the footnote disrupt that expectation.Why would they expect it? Other entries, like the regular attack action (in melee), don't have such text, either.
So people try to find what part of a charge doesn’t provoke, only to find more parts that explicitly do infact provoke and that creates more confusion because the table clearly says it does not provoke.What do you mean "more parts that explicitly do infact provoke"? The exception added by the footnote is the only part.
That sentence is indeed clear as day, but you’re just looking at one part. Someone who is new, or is otherwise reading the rules for charging for the first time however will be confused when they look at the whole thing. The written rules for charge, plus the entry on the table, and the footnote. Reading many one individual part is not confusing, but when you look at it all together from the perspective of a new player, it is VERY confusing.
Why would they expect it? Simple. The table lists if an action provokes or not in one of its columns, charge is listed as not provoking. That fact alone creates an expectation that it doesn’t provoke. But when the rules themselves keep saying otherwise it leaves people confused. Why does the table say charging doesn’t provoke when charging infact does provoke? You personally might not see it that way, but there are plenty of people who do.
The footnote makes it clear that movement still provokes. The rules for charge don’t protect combat maneuvers or unarmed strikes from provoking. The more you look into how charge works, the more you realize that the table entry is flat out wrong. But the problem isn’t really that charg itself does or doesn’t provoke, but rather the fact that charge is a combination of two different actions and follows the full rules for both separately. Which is why in my first post I stated flat out, the reason for the confusion is it’s existence on that table. Removing its entry from the attack of opportunity column would have removed every last bit of confusion surrounding charge and attacks of opportunity. It follows the rules for movement and melee attacks/combat maneuvers… which gives you when it does and doesn’t provoke. It is the fact that the table tells new players That it just doesn’t provoke that leads to the confusion in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You and Chell Raighn keep talking about "confusion". What is confusing about the sentence "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity."?The word "usually".
"5' step", "Withdrawal action", "Spring attack".
Just to cite a few examples of why it is "usually". All explicitly say that all or part of the movement when using that action doesn't provoke and specify when that happens.
"Charge" has no text saying that part of the movement during the charge doesn't provoke.
You are making a very specious argument with nothing to support it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of you say that the NO near Charge is confusing.
So I suppose that you find the NO beside Full attack is confusing and that people will think that firing a bow during a full attack will not provoke. Or that making a combat maneuver or unarmed strikes without the relative feat will not provoke if made as part of a full attack.
Or instead, you feel that "it doesn't provokeunless you don't do other actions that provoke" is clear in those instances?
If you think that it is clear, what makes the difference?
Some of you say that the NO near Charge is confusing.
So I suppose that you find the NO beside Full attack is confusing and that people will think that firing a bow during a full attack will not provoke. Or that making a combat maneuver or unarmed strikes without the relative feat will not provoke if made as part of a full attack.
Or instead, you feel that "it doesn't provokeunless you don't do other actions that provoke" is clear in those instances?
If you think that it is clear, what makes the difference?
You do realize that there have been people in the past who have tried to argue that their full attacks with ranged/thrown weapons don’t provoke because of the no on the table next to full attack… which just goes to show that the same sort of confusion has been created from that one as well… they could have opted for a more open ended entry for the table for these items instead of just “yes” or “no” like how aid another says “maybe” and use skill says “usually”… those entries make it clear from the start that all or part of the action may or may not provoke depending on the conditions surrounding it…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that there have been people in the past who have tried to argue that their full attacks with ranged/thrown weapons don’t provoke because of the no on the table next to full attack… which just goes to show that the same sort of confusion has been created from that one as well… they could have opted for a more open ended entry for the table for these items instead of just “yes” or “no” like how aid another says “maybe” and use skill says “usually”… those entries make it clear from the start that all or part of the action may or may not provoke depending on the conditions surrounding it…Some of you say that the NO near Charge is confusing.
So I suppose that you find the NO beside Full attack is confusing and that people will think that firing a bow during a full attack will not provoke. Or that making a combat maneuver or unarmed strikes without the relative feat will not provoke if made as part of a full attack.
Or instead, you feel that "it doesn't provokeunless you don't do other actions that provoke" is clear in those instances?
If you think that it is clear, what makes the difference?
I notice that you used the past tense for those other discussions, meaning that you acknowledge that the issue is settled. And that brings us back to the question of "how is this different?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are making a very specious argument with nothing to support it.
Just to be clear, my argument is that people are confused, and despite the fact that the rules ARE clear, I understand why it would be confusing to some people.
So the thing that supports my argument is that people are confused by this ... like - the existence of this thread I guess?
I'm arguing against Derklord, who seems to think that the ONLY possible way to misinterpret this is if you're dishonestly misrepresenting the text in order to pull one over on the GM ...
Do you think that qualifies as "a very specious argument with nothing to support it" or are you ok accepting that argument at face value?
What do you think is more likely: That everyone who has ever gotten this wrong is a dishonest cheat? Or that maybe some of them really did misunderstand the rules?