Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prom 08-01-07, 02:51 AM	Hi All, A large flying creature that takes up 2 inches by 2 inches can withdraw by flying away without having an AOO on it, correct. So if a character is mounted on a horse can the large flying creature still withdraw without getting an AOO on it? Or does the extra high of the horse mean that flying creature will pass though 2 vertical squares. The creature is a Chimera. Prom
Marcus Majarra 08-01-07, 09:53 AM	Well, since being mounted usually grants a high-ground bonus against creatures on the ground, I'd be inclined to increase the reach of the rider to cover an extra five feet upwards.
Kouk 08-01-07, 10:25 AM	But are we talking about starting to fly from the ground, ie take-off? He might get an AoO if he flies straight upwards, but most big things can't fly that well. A Chimera has a Poor fly speed so he needs a 45 degree angle to start ascending. Also, flying is a part of movement, so during his Withdraw he can start out by withdrawing on land, and then take to the air once he is out of reach of the opponent. If he is fighting while already in the air, then he likely wouldn't get closer than he had to, so he would be at least 5 ft up. Anyway, since the rider occupies the same "space" as his horse (at least 10ft high if we assume a creature's space remains three dimensional based on creature size), he already can reach to 15ft up (20 with a reach weapon).
Prom 08-01-07, 04:29 PM	Hi Kouk and Marcus Majarra, The Chimera is taking-off from the ground, as it landed. The Chimera is also flanked by an unmounted fighter with no reach weapon. The mounted Paladin has no reach weapon. Key: P = Paladin on horse C = Chimera on the ground F = Fighter unmounted # = Buildings o = Empty space ################# oooooooooPP oooooooooPP ooooooooooCC This is the only escape route -> ooooooooooCC ooooooooooF ################# Prom
The_Ditto 08-01-07, 04:47 PM	Hi Kouk and Marcus Majarra, The Chimera is taking-off from the ground, as it landed. The Chimera is also flanked by an unmounted fighter with no reach weapon. The mounted Paladin has no reach weapon. Key: P = Paladin on horse C = Chimera on the ground F = Fighter unmounted # = Buildings o = Empty space ################# oooooooooPP oooooooooPP ooooooooooCC This is the only escape route -> ooooooooooCC ooooooooooF ################# Prom That's not his "only" escape route ... think "5 oclock" ... sure, draw an AoO from the fighter, but not the Paladin .. Likewise ... go "1 oclock" and draw an AoO from the Paladin, but not the fighter ... Unintelligent foes, however, (like the Chimera ..) .. would probably just take the path you mentioned ... and draw an AoO from both ... (flying or not, he just can't get out of reach of either quickly enough) The exception would be as noted earlier .... if he's "flying" 5 or 10 ft up .. he might be able to withdraw "upwards" ... and avoid the AoOs ... but it doesn't sound like the case here .. :tiphat:
Kouk 08-02-07, 03:38 AM	I agree that the best way out of that would be to Withdraw at an angle so as to only provoke a single AoO from one of the characters. Remember that moving with a listed speed out of threatened squares only provokes a single AoO from a single opponent (barring extraordinary circumstances) no matter how many threatened squares you move through. The Chimera could circle around the fighter entirely and go to the left if he wanted, and only provoke a single AoO from that fighter. But then again, it is just a Chimera. I would also think it wouldn't have the tactical wherewithal to do anything other than fly straight away, provoking from everyone.
eamon 08-02-07, 06:40 PM	Even "unintelligent" animals are adept at avoiding attack. If there's an obvious direction that takes them away from opponents without provoking AOO's anything with int 1 or higher that isn't somehow impaired will find it. It gets more complex if you need to take into account future actions, but I wouldn't play animals too dumb to avoid AOO's. It's instinct. Any creature that has a fight/flight instinct should be OK.
Prom 08-03-07, 02:07 AM	Hi All, Thanks for the help and advice. Prom
The_Ditto 08-03-07, 01:11 PM	Even "unintelligent" animals are adept at avoiding attack. If there's an obvious direction that takes them away from opponents without provoking AOO's anything with int 1 or higher that isn't somehow impaired will find it. It gets more complex if you need to take into account future actions, but I wouldn't play animals too dumb to avoid AOO's. It's instinct. Any creature that has a fight/flight instinct should be OK. Fair enough .. but what I was getting at is that it becomes an intelligent decision to say: "Oh, I'll go this way and draw an AoO from the fighter, but avoid the Paladin ..." Whereas, the "unintelligent" would like go: "Hmm, the *safest* way out seems to be this way ..." ... and it'd probably try to avoid both equalling ... (barring some real reason to avoid one over the other ... ie Paladin has inflicted over 50 dmg, fighter only 5 ... ok, then I could see it shying away from the Paladin and letting the Fighter take the AoO ... ) That's consistent with the creature's intelligence ..
pukunui 08-04-07, 06:01 PM	Hi all. I'm Prom's DM. The part of the encounter with the chimera that confused me was how to apply the withdrawing rules (which were written with Medium-sized PCs in mind) to creatures occupying more than one square. If a Large creature, occupying 4 squares, all of which happen to be threatened by PCs, decides to withdraw in a straight line, can it move twice without provoking AoO? This is how I ruled it on the night - I argued that the second move was still a withdrawal from the chimera's initial squares (since part of its body was still occupying squares it had been occupying before it had moved) and thus didn't provoke any AoO. It's hard to explain without being able to show you what I was talking about. Let's see if I can. Initial setup First 5ft (no AoO) Second 5ft (AoO?) xPPxxx xPPxxx xPPxxx xPPxxx xPPxxx xPPxxx xxCCxx xxxCCx xxxxCC xxCCxx xxxCCx xxxxCC xxFxxx xxFxxx xxFxxx [Bold letters represent squares threatened by PCs] As you can see, in the initial setup the chimera is occupying 4 squares threatened by PCs (two by the paladin and two by the fighter). The chimera decides to withdraw. It moves back 5ft, moving out of 2 threatened squares it had previously been occupying - but part of its body is still occupying the other 2 initially threatened squares. No AoO are provoked here as per the rules. Then the chimera moves another 5ft in the same direction, moving completely out of the other 2 squares it had initially occupied. So the question is, when the Large chimera moved the next 5ft, should it have provoked any AoO? Technically, it was still moving out of the 4 threatened squares it had filled initially, but also technically, it was doing so with a different part of its body than the part that had been occupying them initially. As I said, I ruled that it didn't provoke any AoO and it was able to back off and then get airborne without getting hit. The PCs made short work of it shortly after that without suffering much ... so it's not like my judgment call (should it be proven to have been erroneous) caused the death of a PC or anything major like that. I would still like to know for the future though, as that won't be the last time the PCs will potentially flank a Large or larger sized creature ... Thanks, Jonny
Marcus Majarra 08-04-07, 06:32 PM	Withdraw rules stipulate that the square you start in is not considered threatened when you withdraw. For larger creatures, this is most likely to refer to all the squares they occupy. I believe you ruled correctly. When you withdraw, you simply make an abstraction of the squares the creature occupied originally, and work it from there. The way it works, basically, a withdrawing creature has to both enter and leave a threatened square that it didn't occupy when it initiated the action in order to provoke AoOs for movement.
pukunui 08-04-07, 06:34 PM	Withdraw rules stipulate that the square you start in is not considered threatened when you withdraw. For larger creatures, this is most likely to refer to all the squares they occupy. I believe you ruled correctly. When you withdraw, you simply make an abstraction of the squares the creature occupied originally, and work it from there. The way it works, basically, a withdrawing creature has to both enter and leave a threatened square that it didn't occupy when it initiated the action in order to provoke AoOs for movement. OK cool. Thanks for that. It's nice to know I made a good judgment call for once! ;)
Nom 08-05-07, 01:32 AM	The way it works, basically, a withdrawing creature has to both enter and leave a threatened square that it didn't occupy when it initiated the action in order to provoke AoOs for movement.I disagree. As far as I can tell, it simply means that your first space of movement doesn't provoke. Against large creatures, you resolve melee attacks against a particular square. So on the first square of movement, all four of the creature's squares move one space, and none of them provoke. They then all move a second space, and this does provoke. If you threaten any one of the creature's squares when it takes that second move, you can attack that square. (No, you can't attack multiple squares if you threaten more than one).
pukunui 08-05-07, 01:48 AM	I disagree. As far as I can tell, it simply means that your first space of movement doesn't provoke. Against large creatures, you resolve melee attacks against a particular square. So on the first square of movement, all four of the creature's squares move one space, and none of them provoke. They then all move a second space, and this does provoke. If you threaten any one of the creature's squares when it takes that second move, you can attack that square. (No, you can't attack multiple squares if you threaten more than one).The problem is that the withdrawal rules are written with Medium-sized creatures in mind. Thus, the relevant text uses phraseology such as "the square you start out in is not considered threatened ..." and "if, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal." However, Large creatures start out in more than one square. Even if you "resolve melee attacks against a particular square", the fact of the matter is that, when a Large creature starts to withdraw and moves the first 5ft, part of it is still in some of the squares that it had started out in ... I don't see why a larger creature shouldn't have a larger "withdrawal area". Yes, they're bigger targets, but they're also better able to defend themselves since they can reach farther. Just my thoughts. Thanks for responding, Nom.
Nom 08-05-07, 10:00 AM	"square", not "space". The difference is significant. I'd also be careful about pushing the "starting square" idea too hard. If I withdraw from A to B, then back to A, then onwards, do I provoke when I leave 'A' the second time? Similarly, if we claim that square = space for a large creature, what happens if the square you threaten is still occupied by the same creature after it takes a normal (non-withdraw) move? ...C.D ...C.D ...C.D MM.... .MM... ..MM.. MM.... .MM... ..MM..By this logic, monster MM (moving to attack D) has not provoked an AoO from C, since his space never leaves a square threatened by C. That's not how the rules are supposed to work - a creature with 10 ft. space doesn't (and shouldn't) get 10 ft. steps.
pukunui 08-05-07, 04:21 PM	I'm not talking about normal movement, though. Just withdrawing. It seems to me like if a Large creature gets flanked, it's basically f*cked. There's no way for it to get out without provoking AoO. I suppose I should just be happy that the PCs used good tactics and were able to defeat the monster relatively easily ... but it wasn't very fun for me, I have to say. Nom - are you saying I didn't make the right call? It wouldn't be the first time. Somehow I just knew, after replying to Marcus' more favorable response, that I had jumped the gun and that someone would come along and say, "No, actually, you're wrong." My snap judgment calls seem to be wrong more often than they're right. I'll just go hide in the corner ... :allalone:
Marcus Majarra 08-06-07, 01:35 AM	I'd also be careful about pushing the "starting square" idea too hard. If I withdraw from A to B, then back to A, then onwards, do I provoke when I leave 'A' the second time? From a RAW point of view, you wouldn't provoke for leaving A the second time. As stated in withdraw rules, the square you start in is not considered threatened for the purposes of the withdraw action. If you occupy more than one square, than none of these squares is considered threatened when you withdraw. Similarly, if we claim that square = space for a large creature, what happens if the square you threaten is still occupied by the same creature after it takes a normal (non-withdraw) move? This is not what I'm claiming. What I'm claiming is that a large creature occupies more than one square and that anything referring to its square defers to ALL its squares unless otherwise stated. This has no impact upon provoking AoOs for movement, since these refer to moving out of a threatened square, as opposed to moving out of your space. The only thing withdraw does for you is have your starting squares not considered as threatened. No other squares are affected.
pukunui 08-06-07, 03:27 AM	From a RAW point of view, you wouldn't provoke for leaving A the second time. As stated in withdraw rules, the square you start in is not considered threatened for the purposes of the withdraw action. If you occupy more than one square, than none of these squares is considered threatened when you withdraw. This is not what I'm claiming. What I'm claiming is that a large creature occupies more than one square and that anything referring to its square defers to ALL its squares unless otherwise stated. This has no impact upon provoking AoOs for movement, since these refer to moving out of a threatened square, as opposed to moving out of your space. The only thing withdraw does for you is have your starting squares not considered as threatened. No other squares are affected. I can kind of see Nom's point though, Marcus. A Large creature occupies 4 squares. When it starts to withdraw, none of these squares is considered threatened. If it moves 5ft, part of it will most likely still be in two of those initial squares, but the question is ... do they still count as "starting squares"? Technically, the part of the monster that was in those squares to start with has now moved out of them. Nom would argue they don't. You and I have been arguing they do - but I'm now unsure which interpretation is correct.
Nom 08-06-07, 07:54 AM	What I'm claiming is that a large creature occupies more than one square and that anything referring to its square defers to ALL its squares unless otherwise stated.And I see no precedent for this, and plenty of precedent for the opposite. For example, the cover and flanking rules consistently use "space" to mean "total area" and "square" to mean individual 5 ft. squares. This has no impact upon provoking AoOs for movement, since these refer to moving out of a threatened square, as opposed to moving out of your space.But if we say "square = space", then the creature still occupies that square and thus has not in any way "moved out of" it. The only thing withdraw does for you is have your starting squares not considered as threatened.No. Your starting "square" (singular) is not considered threatened. In exactly the same way as a part of a creaturing moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO, if a part of a creature is not in the square it started in (even if it was a square another part started in) then it enjoys no special protection when Withdrawing. At least not to my reading. Now, it's possible they meant otherwise, but the lack of a "big creatures and withdrawing" (or "big creatures and AoOs") sub-section and the fact that big creatures still only get 5 ft. steps strongly suggest to me that they didn't.
Marcus Majarra 08-06-07, 12:46 PM	And I see no precedent for this, and plenty of precedent for the opposite. For example, the cover and flanking rules consistently use "space" to mean "total area" and "square" to mean individual 5 ft. squares. There's no precedent for thinking otherwise. Flanking has nothing to do with the notion of "your starting square." While the definition for a creature's space is clear, you have no basis for arguing that a creature's starting square is only a single square, when it occupies more than one square. But if we say "square = space", then the creature still occupies that square and thus has not in any way "moved out of" it. Which is why I'm not arguing that "square = space." I'm arguing that a creature's starting square includes all the squares it occupies at the start of its turn (or, more appropriately, at the start of its action). No. Your starting "square" (singular) is not considered threatened. In exactly the same way as a part of a creaturing moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO, if a part of a creature is not in the square it started in (even if it was a square another part started in) then it enjoys no special protection when Withdrawing. At least not to my reading. Now, it's possible they meant otherwise, but the lack of a "big creatures and withdrawing" (or "big creatures and AoOs") sub-section and the fact that big creatures still only get 5 ft. steps strongly suggest to me that they didn't. Well, then what is a large creature's starting square? The truth is, you have no grounds for assigning a single square as its starting square simply because all the squares it occupies are the ones it starts in. I believe you're looking at this in the wrong way. Rather than extrapolate what information you have and make an abstraction of anything that isn't related to the question at hand, you're attempting to correlate your extrapolation with other unrelated rules, such as the 5-foot-step. Here's a reason why you shouldn't compare this to taking 5-foot-steps. When you withdraw, squares are actually considered as not being threatened. When you take a 5-foot-step, your initial square is still threatened; the difference is that your movement doesn't provoke AoOs. The difference is subtle, but present. IMHO, given the fact that withdrawing WILL take up your entire round's worth of actions, it seems reasonable to me to allow creatures of all sizes to have all the squares they start in to not be considered threatened. It's far more consistent with the RAW than any other sort of interpretation, if only because you're no longer making an arbitrary decision as to which square is it starting square.
pukunui 08-06-07, 04:42 PM	Here's how I see it: 1) Your starting square/space is not considered threatened only for your initial 5ft movement when withdrawing. Any further movement provokes AoO as normal, even if part of your body is moving out of squares that a different part had occupied prior to withdrawing. 2) Your starting square/space is not considered threatened for your entire withdraw movement. Thus, if part of your body moves into and then out of squares that another part of your body occupied prior to initiating the withdraw action, then you still do not provoke AoO. To be honest, I can see how the rules support interpretation #1. However, I've never really like the AoO rules, and I don't see why withdrawing should ever provoke one no matter how many threatened squares you move through. I mean, the point is that you're defensively disengaging from melee combat with an opponent. That would mean that you're on your guard and are thus not giving your opponent any openings. If you happen to be a Large creature and have been flanked so that you have to move through multiple squares threatened by the enemies flanking you (who are thus engaging you in melee), then you ought to be able to move out of all of those squares without provoking anything because you are not fully disengaged from melee with them until you are out of their threatening zones. (EDIT: Although I can certainly see someone making the argument here that the disengaging enemy is unable to properly prevent any openings because he is being flanked by two opponents and thus must divide his attention between them both, which is more likely to cause him to open himself up to AoO ... but whatever ...) That's how I see it. If I have to make it a house rule, so be it. I'm willing to do that because it makes sense to me.
Marcus Majarra 08-06-07, 06:15 PM	(EDIT: Although I can certainly see someone making the argument here that the disengaging enemy is unable to properly prevent any openings because he is being flanked by two opponents and thus must divide his attention between them both, which is more likely to cause him to open himself up to AoO ... but whatever ...) Smaller creatures can also be threatened by more than one creature while in their starting space. Heck, they can even be flanked while in their starting square, and still legally withdraw without provoking a single AoO (as is the case when the creature is flanked diagonally). If they get to withdraw from multiple opponents without risk, I don't see why larger creatures shouldn't get to do so as well.
pukunui 08-06-07, 06:31 PM	Smaller creatures can also be threatened by more than one creature while in their starting space. Heck, they can even be flanked while in their starting square, and still legally withdraw without provoking a single AoO (as is the case when the creature is flanked diagonally). If they get to withdraw from multiple opponents without risk, I don't see why larger creatures shouldn't get to do so as well. There we go then. Thank you for countering my own counter-argument. LOL. I think withdrawing should never provoke AoO from the opponents with whom you are disengaging melee combat. If you happen to withdraw through another opponent's threatened area, well, that's another story ... But if you're disengaging from an opponent, then you're watching them and you're on your guard and you're not going to give them any openings no matter how far from them you move.
Nom 08-06-07, 10:21 PM	I think withdrawing should never provoke AoO from the opponents with whom you are disengaging melee combat. If you happen to withdraw through another opponent's threatened area, well, that's another story ...Not necessarily a bad house rule, but you need to consider two issues: (1) Reach. A creature with natural reach can make it dangerous to Withdraw, since your first square of movement will not leave the threatened area. (2) Your ruling requires a subjective call on "disengaging", since the Withdraw rules themselves note that "Withdraw" can be used for tactical manoeuvring, not just Withdrawing. If you say "no AoOs", then you need another exception to handle creatures moving through multiple threatened squares. If {smaller creatures} get to withdraw from multiple opponents without risk, I don't see why larger creatures shouldn't get to do so as well.And I fail to see the difference. Assuming no flanker has more than 5 ft. reach, the only situation where a smaller creature might provoke fewer AoOs than a large creature is for a Huge or greature creature flanked in the middle. In this case, the creature is unable to make a first step diagonally because the flankers block it. It's instructive to look at the sample diagrams in post 10. The large creature could have moved diagonally up or down, and thus provoke only a single AoO on that second square of movement. In the same way, if we replace the large creature with a medium creature (and shuffle 'F' one square closer) the same three options are available - diagonal up, diagonal down, or straight. The difference in your proposed ruling is in the 'straight' case. The Medium creature provokes an AoO as he moves that extra square and leaves the reach; the Large creature does not. Two inconsistencies: (1) The large creature is able to move two squares without provoking the AoO while the medium creature can only move one. (2) For the medium creature, moving directly away is the bad option, since it leaves him in range of both opponents. For the large creature, it is the good option. If he had moved diagonally away then he'd get attacked by at least one (since the threatened square in his space isn't a so-called "starting square"). By remaining threatend by both but in his other "starting square" he is able to take no AoOs. Your claim was: "If {smaller creatures} get to withdraw from multiple opponents without risk, I don't see why larger creatures shouldn't get to do so as well." In actual fact, your rule allows the opposite effect - large creatures can safely withdraw in directions that would highly risky for smaller creatures.
Prom 08-06-07, 11:25 PM	Hi All, I thought this thread was over. After reading everything that has been written, I can't see how any sized creature that is flanked could escape AoO, unless they had a special ability or feat. Diagonal flanking is the only exception I can think of as Marcus Majarra has suggested. But even a large creature would get the same benefit as a medium creature by withdrawing diagonally, if flanked diagonally. One of the problems I have had when withdrawing when surrounded or flanked in the past with Medium size character is that I can only avoid one AoO. The problem with the case I have given is the flanking of the Chimera is done with a medium size man and large size horse. If the paladin had not been mounted and the chimera flanked diagonally, there would have been a way to get away without AoO. Pukunui I like the idea of a house rule on withdrawing not giving AoO if flanked or surrounded, always disliked that rule. Although I think I might abuse it, given the chance. I have learned a lot from this discussion, thanks. Prom
Marcus Majarra 08-07-07, 12:12 AM	(1) The large creature is able to move two squares without provoking the AoO while the medium creature can only move one. This isn't an inconsistency. Every creature can end up safely traveling a distance equal to its space without risk when withdrawing (assuming it doesn't enter a threatened square it didn't start in). This sort of movement is consistent with all creature sizes and is well worth the sacrifice of your entire round's worth of actions. (2) For the medium creature, moving directly away is the bad option, since it leaves him in range of both opponents. For the large creature, it is the good option. If he had moved diagonally away then he'd get attacked by at least one (since the threatened square in his space isn't a so-called "starting square"). By remaining threatend by both but in his other "starting square" he is able to take no AoOs. I don't see how this is inconsistent. The larger creature needs only to worry about a smaller part of its "circumference" than the medium creature, making it justifiable to allow it to safely withdraw a larger distance. In any case, I've yet to see any RAW support to your claims.
Nom 08-07-07, 03:25 AM	In any case, I've yet to see any RAW support to your claims.That's begging the question. If there were explicit corroborating text, then the RAW wouldn't be under discussion. That said, I have noted: (1) the precedent of "space" vs "square" (2) that all creatures get a 5 ft. step, regardless of size (3) that melee attacks against and by large creatures are evaluated against a square, not a space Are there counter-precedents?
pukunui 08-07-07, 04:00 AM	Not necessarily a bad house rule, but you need to consider two issues: (1) Reach. A creature with natural reach can make it dangerous to Withdraw, since your first square of movement will not leave the threatened area. (2) Your ruling requires a subjective call on "disengaging", since the Withdraw rules themselves note that "Withdraw" can be used for tactical manoeuvring, not just Withdrawing. If you say "no AoOs", then you need another exception to handle creatures moving through multiple threatened squares.Ugh. :banghead: It's all too complicated. I hate the AoO rules. They really suck. They're too complicated and seriously slow the game down but at the same time they're too ingrained into the system for me to be able to get rid of them altogether. Sigh ... When 4e eventually comes along, I seriously hope it's got better movement rules. EDIT 2: I don't think equating "disengaging" with the Withdraw action is all that subjective. All the text says is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "despite the name, you don't actually have to leave combat entirely". On the one hand, you could read that as tactical maneuvering, yes. But you're still disengaging from the previous melee combat, even if you're only doing it to move to a more advantageous position or to go strike at a different opponent. Any time you move away from someone with whom you've been in melee, you're disengaging. What the Withdraw action says to me is that you're disengaging defensively, that you've got your guard up and aren't giving your opponent any opportunities to strike. I wonder if a better house rule would be to make it so that rather than the square you start out in being considered not threatened, it's all the squares considered threatened by the enemy/enemies with whom you've just been engaged in melee that are not considered threatened. Meaning, you can get away from those particular enemies without provoking AoO from them, but if you run afoul of any other enemy, then you provoke AoO as usual. How does that sound? Pukunui I like the idea of a house rule on withdrawing not giving AoO if flanked or surrounded, always disliked that rule. Although I think I might abuse it, given the chance.LOL. I'll have to make it airtight then ... ;) EDIT 1: I might just forget about it. I mean, really, the whole reason this even came up was because the chimera was being flanked. If that hadn't been the case, then it most likely would've been able to get away without provoking any AoO. So perhaps this is just a side effect of flanking ... I might as well just leave it as it is.
Nom 08-07-07, 09:28 AM	It's all too complicated. I hate the AoO rules. They really suck. They're too complicated and seriously slow the game down but at the same time they're too ingrained into the system for me to be able to get rid of them altogether.In my experience, AoOs are something that many people (eg about half my players) find difficult to "grok". At heart, they are fundamentally simple: "If you are in melee range of someone and you perform an action that is not 'fighting', you (might) cop a free swing". Unfortunately, concepts that are at once simple and exotic can be some of the hardest to grasp, since it requires a "leap of understanding", rather than an incremental process. I think I find them easy because I naturally think in terms of "zones of control". This is a common wargaming concept; a unit exerts influence beyond its actual space and within that area of influence can hamper the ability of other units to perform actions other than simple attacks. But until one can wrap their head around "zones of control" and "safe" vs "unsafe" actions it's all rather opaque. For all their oddness, AoOs and threatened areas are actually a rather elegant way of controlling the ability of non-active characters to limit the freedom of active characters. At the most basic, AoOs serve as a disincentive to cast spells or drink potions or the like in melee combat, as opposed to some sort of (clumsy) phased initiative system. However, once you have the idea in place, a whole bunch of mechanics open up. The trouble is that if you haven't grasped the basic idea, all these extra twists are just confusing noise.
pukunui 08-07-07, 03:33 PM	I get the basic concept of the AoO. It's just that there are so many actions you can take in the game, and you have to remember which ones do and which ones don't provoke AoO, and there are all these conditions (e.g. if casting in melee, then yes AoO; if casting defensively with a successful Concentration check, then no AoO). So yeah, it's not that I don't understand the concept. It's that I think it's a cumbersome mechanic that really slows the game down. It becomes like a game of amateur chess, where the players sit there pondering all their possible moves in order to avoid AoO, and everyone else just sits and twiddles their thumbs. If I could get rid of AoO, I would. But I can't. So I won't. :P
Zealot 08-07-07, 05:13 PM	At our table, between several of us that DM, it is interpreted as the first 5' of movement won't provoke attacks of opportunity. After the first 5' if you would provoke more attacks then you do so normally. _l_l_l_lOl_l_l_l _l_l_l_l#lXl\\\l _l_l_l_l#lXl///l _l_l_l_l_lOl_l_l O = Players One and Two # = Safe square of movement X = AOO \\\ /// = Withdrawing Creature Edit: Check my posting below, this may be incorrect.
pukunui 08-07-07, 05:30 PM	At our table, between several of us that DM, it is interpreted as the first 5' of movement won't provoke attacks of opportunity. After the first 5' if you would provoke more attacks then you do so normally. _l_l_l_lOl_l_l_l _l_l_l_l#lXl\\\l _l_l_l_l#lXl///l _l_l_l_l_lOl_l_l O = Players One and Two # = Safe square of movement X = AOO \\\ /// = Withdrawing Creature OoOo, colorful! Thanks for sharing. I admit I was wrong and will play it that if a Large or larger creature gets caught in a flank and tries to withdraw, it'll get whacked if it moves more than 5 ft.
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 01:37 AM	I admit I was wrong and will play it that if a Large or larger creature gets caught in a flank and tries to withdraw, it'll get whacked if it moves more than 5 ft. Except that you're not wrong. What Zealot uses at his table does not coincide with the RAW. He's simply making an interpretation based on the arbitrary call that withdrawing equals to both making a 5-foot step and getting more movement done, when this is simply not the case. Withdraw indicates that the squares you start in are not considered threatened, so you're technically able to move to and from that square as many times as you like. That's the big difference between the 5-foot step and withdrawing. Taking the step doesn't provoke AoOs. Your square is still very much threatened while you take a 5-foot step; this is not the case when you withdraw. That said, I have noted: (1) the precedent of "space" vs "square" (2) that all creatures get a 5 ft. step, regardless of size (3) that melee attacks against and by large creatures are evaluated against a square, not a space Are there counter-precedents? (1) This is a case-by-case argument. You cannot generalize here. For example, cover rules defer to individual squares for determining cover (if any square occupied by a large creature is provided cover, then the creature has cover), whereas flanking rules require that the creature be threatened from opposite sides of its space, despite the fact that one or both of the flankers might be unable to threaten all of the creature's squares. (2) As stated above, the 5-foot step has nothing to do with withdrawing. The former doesn't provoke AoOs, whereas the latter removes threatened squares. (3) This is of no consequence. Attacks are still resolved against squares; it's just that withdrawing limits the number of squares you can attack.
pukunui 08-08-07, 04:32 AM	Except that you're not wrong. What Zealot uses at his table does not coincide with the RAW. He's simply making an interpretation based on the arbitrary call that withdrawing equals to both making a 5-foot step and getting more movement done, when this is simply not the case. Withdraw indicates that the squares you start in are not considered threatened, so you're technically able to move to and from that square as many times as you like. That's the big difference between the 5-foot step and withdrawing. Taking the step doesn't provoke AoOs. Your square is still very much threatened while you take a 5-foot step; this is not the case when you withdraw.Like I said before, there are two interpretations here: 1) Withdrawing makes it so your starting square(s) is/are not considered threatened for the first 5ft of movement made. 2) Withdrawing makes it so your starting square(s) is/are not considered threatened for your entire turn, even if you move out of them and then back in and then out again. While I initially held with interpretation #2, I can see how the rules imply, if not explicitly state, interpretation #1. There's nothing in the FAQ. I might have to try customer service. :yuck:
Nom 08-08-07, 11:03 AM	What Zealot uses at his table does not coincide with the RAW.As puk said, it doesn't coincide with your reading of RAW. It does happen to coincide with a lot of other people's reading of RAW. Now, if you don't agree that there is any room for an alternative reading of that text, this whole discussion is pointless. It also makes you look stubborn when you take the "high ground" and expect those follow an alternative reading to present corroboration from other places in the rules without providing the same yourself. (1) This is a case-by-case argument. You cannot generalize here. For example, cover rules defer to individual squares for determining cover (if any square occupied by a large creature is provided cover, then the creature has cover), whereas flanking rules require that the creature be threatened from opposite sides of its space, despite the fact that one or both of the flankers might be unable to threaten all of the creature's squares.Except even in making this arguement you are careful to distinguish between (individual) "square" and "space". Of course, the issue isn't so much "square" vs "space" but whether "square" generalises to "each square" or "any square". 2 and 3 aren't proof texts, they are precedents. They showing a correlation between how the rules generally treat large creatures and squares vs spaces and one interpretation of this rule. What other (unambiguous) rules are stylistically coherent with the alternative reading?
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 12:42 PM	Except even in making this arguement you are careful to distinguish between (individual) "square" and "space". Of course, the issue isn't so much "square" vs "space" but whether "square" generalises to "each square" or "any square". Fair enough. 2 and 3 aren't proof texts, they are precedents. I still fail to see how #2 creates any sort of precedence here. Just because both the 5-foot step and withdraw involve movement doesn't mean there exists a correlation between the two. I would've agreed with you on this issue if withdraw stated something along the lines of "you do not provoke attacks of opportunity for leaving your starting square." This would've created a good precedent. As it is, the 5-foot step is simply an activity that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity where another similar activity would. The 5-foot step is to normal movement what casting defensively is to casting normally. In itself, it has absolutely no correlation with any aspect of withdrawing, since withdrawing doesn't outrule the fact that you still provoke attacks of opportunity for leaving a threatened square. As for #3, I think your interpretation is wrong. You never attack a square (unless you're randomly striking at an invisible foe); you always attack a creature (or another valid target). Whether or not you can strike a creature depends on which squares you threaten; not which squares the target occupies. Withdraw has to do with which squares the withdrawing creature occupies. This is why I feel this doesn't create a precedent at all. I know of two sources of precedent for space/square issues (both act differently): 1) Cover rules. Cover is determined by and against any eligible squares (as opposed to all the creature's sapce). 2) Flanking rules. Flanking is determined by being threatened on opposite sides/corners of its space, despite the fact that flankers only threaten part of its space.
pukunui 08-08-07, 04:34 PM	Just FYI: I've e-mailed customer service about this. I outlined the two interpretations and asked them which one is correct. I also pointed them in the direction of this thread. I'm not expecting much of anything, but if they do give me a definitive answer, it'll be a pleasant surprise and I'll certainly post it here. Cheers, Jonny
Zealot 08-08-07, 05:17 PM	If you look at Rules of the Game: Actions (Part Four) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a It says that the SPACE you start out in is not considered threatened... Withdraw: When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The space you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that space. (Enemies you cannot see still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can't withdraw from combat if you're blinded.) The withdraw action doesn't exempt you from attacks of opportunity when you leave spaces other than the first one you exit during the withdraw action. Because you move when you withdraw, you cannot take a 5-foot step during the same turn. If you're limited to a standard action during your turn, you can withdraw as a standard action. Perhaps that can help us better understand this situation, it does say space and not square.
pukunui 08-08-07, 06:16 PM	Zealot - that's useful for clearing up the distinction between "square" and "space" ... it's nice to see that the article is inclusive of creatures larger than Medium. However, it still doesn't give a definitive answer as to which of the two interpretations I've outlined is the correct one. That is to say, it talks about leaving spaces other than the first one you exit ... which would suggest that a Large creature could move 10ft before provoking AoO, but it doesn't explicitly say that, so it could also mean that once you move 5ft, if you continue to move after that, you're going to provoke AoO.
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 06:59 PM	However, it still doesn't give a definitive answer as to which of the two interpretations I've outlined is the correct one. That is to say, it talks about leaving spaces other than the first one you exit ... which would suggest that a Large creature could move 10ft before provoking AoO, but it doesn't explicitly say that, so it could also mean that once you move 5ft, if you continue to move after that, you're going to provoke AoO. Actually, it does. It states exactly which squares are no longer threatened. It is never an issue in withdrawing as to how much you've moved since you've started to withdraw. No matter how much you move, your starting space is not considered threatened.
pukunui 08-08-07, 07:49 PM	Actually, it does. It states exactly which squares are no longer threatened. It is never an issue in withdrawing as to how much you've moved since you've started to withdraw. No matter how much you move, your starting space is not considered threatened. I guess what it comes down to then is this - has a Large creature "exited the space they started out in" when they withdraw 5ft? If the answer is no, then they can move another 5ft without provoking AoO. If the answer is yes, then they're screwed.
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 09:56 PM	I guess what it comes down to then is this - has a Large creature "exited the space they started out in" when they withdraw 5ft? If the answer is no, then they can move another 5ft without provoking AoO. If the answer is yes, then they're screwed. Actually, what it comes down to is simpler: look at the creature's starting space. For the purpose of withdrawing, that space is not threatened. Opponents can't make attacks of opportunity unless they threaten a given square. The only way for a withdrawing creature to provoke AoOs for movement is for it to move into and then out of a threatened square it didn't occupy when it started its action.
pukunui 08-09-07, 03:44 AM	Actually, what it comes down to is simpler: look at the creature's starting space. For the purpose of withdrawing, that space is not threatened. Opponents can't make attacks of opportunity unless they threaten a given square. The only way for a withdrawing creature to provoke AoOs for movement is for it to move into and then out of a threatened square it didn't occupy when it started its action. I want to believe you. Really I do. But I just feel that Nom's point of view is more compelling at this time. I get that the starting space is not considered threatened for when you start to withdraw. But there has yet to be a definitive answer as to what exactly that means. Does it mean just for the first 5ft of movement or for the whole entire turn? I hope I get a good answer from customer service but I'm not betting on it. :rolleyes:
Nom 08-09-07, 06:18 AM	Perhaps that can help us better understand this situation, it does say space and not square.Not really, since the rules say "square". Unless he went on to make a point about "spaces" (which he doesn't), Skip is just being sloppy. Zealot - that's useful for clearing up the distinction between "square" and "space" ... it's nice to see that the article is inclusive of creatures larger than Medium.But it isn't. In fact, I couldn't see any mention of large creatures in the article. However, it still doesn't give a definitive answer as to which of the two interpretations I've outlined is the correct one. That is to say, it talks about leaving spaces other than the first one you exit ... which would suggest that a Large creature could move 10ft before provoking AoO, but it doesn't explicitly say that, so it could also mean that once you move 5ft, if you continue to move after that, you're going to provoke AoO.Interestingly, a similar argument applies to any movement-based AoO by a large creature. If part of the creature is still in a given square, in what sense has the creature "left" it? 2) Flanking rules. Flanking is determined by being threatened on opposite sides/corners of its space, despite the fact that flankers only threaten part of its space.Actually, flanking is a bet each way. To flank you must cross the space, but "If a creature occupies more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking". In fact, the only rules I can think of where you have to affect the entire space (rather than just a square) are cover vs ranged attacks and the flanked target. Everything else is per-square. Melee is per-square. Area effects are per-square. Terrain is per-square. In most situations, if an effect can be applied to one of your squares, it applies to you.
Marcus Majarra 08-09-07, 12:18 PM	I get that the starting space is not considered threatened for when you start to withdraw. But there has yet to be a definitive answer as to what exactly that means. Does it mean just for the first 5ft of movement or for the whole entire turn? Since there is no indication of any sort of time frame, it applies to the entire action, and that's it. In other words, while you withdraw, the squares you started in are not threatened. The total distance moved is of no relevance; in fact, nothing in the description for withdraw even refers to the distance moved except in limiting how much movement you can do while withdrawing. Not really, since the rules say "square". Unless he went on to make a point about "spaces" (which he doesn't), Skip is just being sloppy. Or Skip was maybe being sloppy back when the PHB was designed. Given that the author of the book is contradicting himself, it seems more reasonable to go with his most recent conclusion. But it isn't. In fact, I couldn't see any mention of large creatures in the article. That's because there's no distinction to be established for large creatures with respect to withdraw. In fact, withdraw doesn't even mention creature sizes at all. This, in itself, is evidence enough that size isn't a factor. Interestingly, a similar argument applies to any movement-based AoO by a large creature. If part of the creature is still in a given square, in what sense has the creature "left" it? Because part of its body left the threatened square. This is obvious. This, of course, doesn't apply to withdrawing, because when you withdraw, the square isn't threatened. It doesn't matter whether you exit the square in part or in whole; since it's not threatened, no AoOs can be executed in it. In fact, the only rules I can think of where you have to affect the entire space (rather than just a square) are cover vs ranged attacks and the flanked target. Everything else is per-square. Melee is per-square. Area effects are per-square. Terrain is per-square. In most situations, if an effect can be applied to one of your squares, it applies to you. That's correct. The truth of the matter is: AoOs is an effect that no longer applies to any of the squares you started in (as confirmed by Skip Williams) because these squares are no longer threatened.
pukunui 08-09-07, 03:22 PM	But it isn't. In fact, I couldn't see any mention of large creatures in the article.I was inferring the inclusiveness based on the use of "space" rather than "square". Medium and smaller creatures only take up one square, whereas Large or larger creatures take up more than one, so the need for the term "space" when referring to them (or perhaps "squares") should be fairly obvious. Since there is no indication of any sort of time frame, it applies to the entire action, and that's it. In other words, while you withdraw, the squares you started in are not threatened. The total distance moved is of no relevance; in fact, nothing in the description for withdraw even refers to the distance moved except in limiting how much movement you can do while withdrawing.Good point. Or Skip was maybe being sloppy back when the PHB was designed. Given that the author of the book is contradicting himself, it seems more reasonable to go with his most recent conclusion.Touché Nom! That's because there's no distinction to be established for large creatures with respect to withdraw. In fact, withdraw doesn't even mention creature sizes at all. This, in itself, is evidence enough that size isn't a factor.Not really. It's more because the PHB is written with the assumption that players are only going to be playing the Medium-sized races outlined earlier in the book so including size in things like the Withdraw rules was undoubtedly deemed irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Marcus Majarra 08-10-07, 10:57 AM	Not really. It's more because the PHB is written with the assumption that players are only going to be playing the Medium-sized races outlined earlier in the book so including size in things like the Withdraw rules was undoubtedly deemed irrelevant. I find this hard to believe, because many parts in the combat section include details for adjudicating larger creatures. Grappling, bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, overrun, cover, and flanking all include special rules with respect to larger creatures. Wouldn't it make sense that if a rule applied differently to a certain type of creature, they would've made mention of it?
pukunui 08-10-07, 07:45 PM	I find this hard to believe, because many parts in the combat section include details for adjudicating larger creatures. Grappling, bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, overrun, cover, and flanking all include special rules with respect to larger creatures. Wouldn't it make sense that if a rule applied differently to a certain type of creature, they would've made mention of it? Fair enough.
pukunui 08-11-07, 04:26 PM	Here's the response I just got from Sam at WotC Customer Service: The whole "starting square is not considered threatened" rule applies only to the first 5 feet of movement from your starting space, no matter how large you are. If you move 5 feet out of your original starting space for the first time, there is no attack of opportunity (AoO). If you were to move another 5 feet, either further or back to your original starting square, that 5 feet counts as new squares of movement and you'll provoke AoO's from anyone that threatens your new space right before you move. Also, let's say you did move back into your original space at that time. Then if you then move back out of that original space a second time, you would provoke an AoO from anyone that threatened a square in that original space but hasn't been able to make an AoO against you yet in the turn. So it looks like Nom is right. Marcus and I are wrong. I can accept that.
Nom 08-11-07, 08:18 PM	So it looks like Nom is right. Marcus and I are wrong. I can accept that.In defense of Marcus, note that the above reply merely says that the interpretation Zealot and I have put forward is consistent with (Sam's view of) the author's intent and ruleset as a whole. In and of itself, the Withdraw rules text provides no useful cues as to how to apply it to multi-square creatures. The interpretation suggested by me is only "better" than that suggested by Marcus' if you accept the underlying principle of "mechanics always think in terms of 5 ft. quantum", which the rules themselves occasionally break (range increments and wording of 'firing into melee', for example).
pukunui 08-11-07, 09:16 PM	In defense of Marcus, note that the above reply merely says that the interpretation Zealot and I have put forward is consistent with (Sam's view of) the author's intent and ruleset as a whole. In and of itself, the Withdraw rules text provides no useful cues as to how to apply it to multi-square creatures. The interpretation suggested by me is only "better" than that suggested by Marcus' if you accept the underlying principle of "mechanics always think in terms of 5 ft. quantum", which the rules themselves occasionally break (range increments and wording of 'firing into melee', for example). The fact that I had a response prior to Sam's saying that my question had been forwarded to the "relevant department" suggests that either Sam is of the relevant department or was told what to say by the said department. In any case, I'm willing to accept the answer given by Wizards regarding adjudicating the rules laid out by their own products.
Nom 08-11-07, 10:25 PM	The fact that I had a response prior to Sam's saying that my question had been forwarded to the "relevant department" suggests that either Sam is of the relevant department or was told what to say by the said department.Interesting. Wasn't just a canned answer but they actually needed to get official advice. :) Obviously, I agree with the given answer. But the rules would have been a lot clearer if they had said "your first 5 ft. square of movement doesn't provoke AoOs" or words to that effect. While I thought what the rules meant was clear, sometimes the text itself says something different to what it ought to mean, and that causes problems. Especially when the alternate reading has some merit, and we're left weighing the alternatives on their relative merit (as in this case).
pukunui 08-11-07, 10:43 PM	Interesting. Wasn't just a canned answer but they actually needed to get official advice. :) Obviously, I agree with the given answer. But the rules would have been a lot clearer if they had said "your first 5 ft. square of movement doesn't provoke AoOs" or words to that effect. While I thought what the rules meant was clear, sometimes the text itself says something different to what it ought to mean, and that causes problems. Especially when the alternate reading has some merit, and we're left weighing the alternatives on their relative merit (as in this case). I agree. It would have been better if the text was clearer. But I now accept that "starting square not threatened" only applies to the initial 5ft of movement. For the most part, the issue wouldn't even come up. After the first 5ft of movement in most cases, you're out of range anyway. It was just that in this particular case, the creature was flanked and it had to move more than 5ft to get away from the flanking PCs. But from now on, if any Large creatures are caught in the same maneuver, I will allow AoO from the PCs after the first 5ft.
Marcus Majarra 08-12-07, 07:41 PM	But I now accept that "starting square not threatened" only applies to the initial 5ft of movement. Call me stubborn, but I don't. I prefer Skip William's interpretations over those of CustServ. Especially since the CustServ explanation integrates otherwise unrelated rules into their interpretation. Still, if you prefer to go with the CustServ ruling, then by all means do.
pukunui 08-12-07, 07:44 PM	Call me stubborn, but I don't. I prefer Skip William's interpretations over those of CustServ. Especially since the CustServ explanation integrates otherwise unrelated rules into their interpretation. Still, if you prefer to go with the CustServ ruling, then by all means do. Somehow I knew you wouldn't accept their answer. Oh well. To each his own.
Marcus Majarra 08-12-07, 08:13 PM	Somehow I knew you wouldn't accept their answer. I'm normally more responsive to CustServ rulings. In this case, they introduced completely unrelated rules into the equation, which is why I'm in disagreement. I would've actually accepted an answer that indicated that larger creatures had to select their "single starting square" from among all they occupy for the purposes of withdraw, even if I don't feel this follows the spirit of the rules (as indicated by the RotG articles).
pukunui 08-13-07, 03:40 AM	I'm normally more responsive to CustServ rulings. In this case, they introduced completely unrelated rules into the equation, which is why I'm in disagreement. I would've actually accepted an answer that indicated that larger creatures had to select their "single starting square" from among all they occupy for the purposes of withdraw, even if I don't feel this follows the spirit of the rules (as indicated by the RotG articles). What unrelated rules are they introducing to the equation? It all makes sense to me.
Marcus Majarra 08-13-07, 12:48 PM	What unrelated rules are they introducing to the equation? It all makes sense to me. The idea that the squares remain unthreatened only for the first 5 feet of movement defers to the 5-foot-step action, which is unrelated to withdrawing. The discussion was never about how much movement you can manage without provoking AoOs; it was about which square(s) was considered as not being threatened.
pukunui 08-13-07, 04:32 PM	The idea that the squares remain unthreatened only for the first 5 feet of movement defers to the 5-foot-step action, which is unrelated to withdrawing. The discussion was never about how much movement you can manage without provoking AoOs; it was about which square(s) was considered as not being threatened. Maybe for you ... but for me, it was about how much movement you can manage without provoking AoO. I understood that a Large creature could withdraw 5ft without provoking them. What I wanted to know was whether or not they could withdraw 10ft without provoking them. And it appears that they cannot. As I have said, I accept that answer. Now it's time to move on. Thanks for all your help, everyone. Cheers, Jonny