Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leilond 06-07-07, 03:30 AM	Hi friends, I had a discussion with my players, and we're looking for "opinions" The rule for detemining if an enemy is "threatened" by you is You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. We are discussing on the meaning of this phrase 1) You must be able to attack the enemy during his turn to threaten him. This means you do not threaten an enemy during his turn if you cannot make an attack of opportunity against him 2) It is not important if it is not your action (and you cannot pratically attack), you need to not be in a condition that prevent you from making any attack (paralized, nauseated etc) On this article http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a we find this phrase Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe. That seem to support the second interpretation. But, as anyone know, the "rules of the game" articles aren't OFFICIAL and so, we would like to know if there is any "official written rule" that prevent a creature to threaten an enemy under cover or against you cannot make an attack of opportunity This is important to see if you provide a flanking bonus to allies when your ally is flanking an enemy that has cover against you, or other "no attack of opportunity" situation that do not state "you do not threaten" or "you cannot act" or "you cannot attack at all" P.S. We know that any condition that prevent you to act (paralized) or to attack (nauseated) or clearly prevent you to threaten (disarmed) must be taken into consideration, but it seems it isn't written anywhere that you do not threaten an enemy under cover
Nom 06-07-07, 06:43 AM	Let's flip over to the cover rules on PH pg 150-152. There, on PH pg 151, we find a brief subsection on "cover and attacks of opportunity".
Leilond 06-07-07, 06:56 AM	Let's flip over to the cover rules on PH pg 150-152. There, on PH pg 151, we find a brief subsection on "cover and attacks of opportunity". I don't know what is written there, because I've not the book with me now and I've the Italian version (different pages) Is it written that you do not threaten enemies with cover? Do you give the flanking bonus to an ally? And more? Is it written that "be able to make an opportunity attack against an enemy" is required to give the flanking bonus to an ally?
Merestil Haye 06-07-07, 08:10 AM	The SRD says this about threatening opponents in the section on AoOs.Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.Provided you are armed with a melee weapon or something the game considers can substitute for a melee weapon (mainly natural weapons, a held touch spell or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) then you threaten all squares you can reach. Threatening a square is a prerequisite for making any melee attack (not just an AoO) against a creature in that square who performs a provoking action. The rules on cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) say you "cannot execute an attack of opportunity" against an opponent with cover relative to you. They do not say "you do not threaten" any enemy with cover relative to you. If they did, you would not be able to make melee attacks against that enemy even on your turn, since threatening is a prerequisite for making those attacks. By contrast you cannot make any attack against a creature with total cover. Thus the answer is that you do threaten enemies with cover from you, but are barred from taking AoOs on them if they provoke. As for the flanking question, you should both gain and provide the flanking bonus against an enemy with cover from you, since the flanking bonus arises from being threatened from opposite sides, and (as we have seen) you do threaten an enemy with cover from you.
goawayugh 06-07-07, 11:23 AM	Thus the answer is that you do threaten enemies with cover from you, but are barred from taking AoOs on them if they provoke. As for the flanking question, you should both gain and provide the flanking bonus against an enemy with cover from you, since the flanking bonus arises from being threatened from opposite sides, and (as we have seen) you do threaten an enemy with cover from you. Agreed. The rules spell this out in no uncertain terms.
Leilond 06-07-07, 12:26 PM	Thanks for the answers. English is not our language and for this reason we weren't sure about the "translation" Let me add a question What about a "flat-footed" creature? Not only flat-footed because it is the first round and not acted yet. Also flat-footed because, for example, moving in a balancing situation You are considered flat-footed while balancing Do you threaten squares when you're flat-footed?
goawayugh 06-07-07, 12:37 PM	Flat-footed (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flatfooted&alpha=) No AoO while flat-footed.
Leilond 06-07-07, 12:45 PM	Flat-footed (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_flatfooted&alpha=) No AoO while flat-footed. My question was do you provide flanking bonus to allies while you're flat-footed?
Prince_of_Parkness 06-07-07, 01:02 PM	Im pretty sure you dont, but combat reflexes allows you to take AoO even when you are flet-footed, so you might with that feet
Marcus Majarra 06-07-07, 01:08 PM	You still threaten enemy squares, even when flat-footed. You just cannot make attacks of opportunity. This is similar to the cover situation detailed above. The character still threatens an opponent with cover, despite being unable to make AoOs against him. As such, he can provide flanking bonuses for his allies.
crashlogic 06-07-07, 01:24 PM	Threatening is not an action on the part of a character. The threatened zone is the description of a location around a the character. An AoO is something a character does. The threatened zone remains whether the character can , or does make an AoO.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-07-07, 03:52 PM	Likewise, there may be some other options which apply against opponents which you threaten but can't make AoOs against, such as some of the higher end feats or ToB maneuvers, or if you've readied an action to attack them (you can still do this even if you can't make an AoO).
PenderGrass 06-07-07, 04:56 PM	You still threaten enemy squares, even when flat-footed. You just cannot make attacks of opportunity. Just to play Balrog's Advocate... Flat-footed doesn't just mean that you cannot make attacks of opportunities - it means you cannot attack, at all. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack,...." While flat-footed you cannot make an attack into any square and therefore you do not threaten any square and therefore you cannot grant flanking bonuses. :dragon: ****
weasel0 06-07-07, 05:11 PM	Which would mean that you could never attack while balancing... but you can. So just because you're flat-footed doesn't mean you can't attack. In fact, reading the SRD(unless i missed it), you only have to make checks when moving or attacked. Unless you have 5+ ranks in Balance, in which case you arn't even considered flat-footed.
PenderGrass 06-07-07, 05:33 PM	Which would mean that you could never attack while balancing... but you can. So just because you're flat-footed doesn't mean you can't attack. In fact, reading the SRD(unless i missed it), you only have to make checks when moving or attacked. Unless you have 5+ ranks in Balance, in which case you arn't even considered flat-footed. I was thinking more of the flat-footed at the start of combat - not being flat-footed from balance or other circumstances, although I failed to mention that. :dragon: ****
Merestil Haye 06-07-07, 06:09 PM	I was thinking more of the flat-footed at the start of combat - not being flat-footed from balance or other circumstances, although I failed to mention that.Combat Reflexes allows the featholder to take AoOs when flat-footed. It says nothing at all about this being by virtue of the featholder threatening the area around him when he normally would not. I (for one) would expect it to mention this if the reason for not being able to take AoOs was that you did not threaten. I believe that an armed creature threatens all the time, even outside combat.
Kouk 06-07-07, 11:55 PM	Just to play Balrog's Advocate... Flat-footed doesn't just mean that you cannot make attacks of opportunities - it means you cannot attack, at all. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack,...." While flat-footed you cannot make an attack into any square and therefore you do not threaten any square and therefore you cannot grant flanking bonuses. :dragon: **** I think your interpretation is incorrect. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you do not threaten if you are flat footed. It could have chosen to say it in the Flat-footed description but all it says is you can't make AoOs, or the Threaten description could have mentioned "exception: you don't threaten if you are flat footed" but it does not, because you do. Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. I think the important part is "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action". You said if you are flat footed at the start of combat you can't attack into a square, of course, because it is not your darned turn, so you can't attack. Flat footed doesn't mean you can't attack the square, you certainly are free to do so when it is your turn. You couldn't attack that square ever if you could not reach it and had no ranged weapon. Any enemy that can reach you, threatens you, regardless of whether he can take an AoO at the moment.
PenderGrass 06-08-07, 02:15 AM	You said if you are flat footed at the start of combat you can't attack into a square, of course, because it is not your darned turn, so you can't attack. Flat footed doesn't mean you can't attack the square, you certainly are free to do so when it is your turn. You couldn't attack that square ever if you could not reach it and had no ranged weapon. Again, just to play Balrog's advocate, threatening squares seems more than just whether you are capable of attacking a square on your turn. Mostly because of this next sentence, "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you." This is certainly not the case when you are starting a round, have a weapon in-hand, and do not have the combat reflexes feat. Therefore, without meeting those criteria, you do not threaten that square before your first initiative count. If you did, I would provoke an attack of opportunity from you. I would even go so far as to point out that there is no need for you to threaten a square to attack it (thus, disproving the entire Cover example/defense given above). PHB, Standard Actions, Attack, Melee Attack - See Page 139 "With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions in Chapter 7: Equipment. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)." Nowhere does it specify that you need to threaten a square to attack it. So, not only are we seeing that if you do not have the capability to make an AoO that you do not threaten that square, but we are also seeing that having cover does provide a defense vs. flanking as well. :dragon: ****
Leilond 06-08-07, 03:14 AM	Again, just to play Balrog's advocate, threatening squares seems more than just whether you are capable of attacking a square on your turn. Mostly because of this next sentence, "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you." This is certainly not the case when you are starting a round, have a weapon in-hand, and do not have the combat reflexes feat. Therefore, without meeting those criteria, you do not threaten that square before your first initiative count. If you did, I would provoke an attack of opportunity from you. I would even go so far as to point out that there is no need for you to threaten a square to attack it (thus, disproving the entire Cover example/defense given above). PHB, Standard Actions, Attack, Melee Attack - See Page 139 "With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions in Chapter 7: Equipment. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)." Nowhere does it specify that you need to threaten a square to attack it. So, not only are we seeing that if you do not have the capability to make an AoO that you do not threaten that square, but we are also seeing that having cover does provide a defense vs. flanking as well. :dragon: **** Thanks for taking the Balrog's advocate role. I really need it to be sure. Here is written Provoking an Attack of Opportunity Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. This means: to know if you can make an attack of opportunity against a target you first need to know if you threaten that square. Threatening a square is a prerequisite for making an attack of opportunity against that square How can you use a conseguence (cannot make an AoO against that enemy) as prerequistite of his prerequisite?
Kouk 06-08-07, 05:13 AM	double
Kouk 06-08-07, 05:19 AM	I think now you are misinterpreting "provoke". You can provoke attacks of opportunity any number of times in a round. You move, cast spells, drink potions, stand up whatever. It has nothing to do with the people who take, or, perform the attack of opportunity against you. If you are standing next to an enemy, and he does not have Combat Reflexes, and he has already used his AoO on your friend that just ran by him last round, does this mean you can no longer "provoke" an attack of opportunity? No, you still provoke, that particular enemy just can't follow through on the AoO against you. His buddy that is also next to you though, is perfectly capable of taking an AoO against you, because provoking is not specific to individual enemies, it is something you caused. When you provoke, you are making an opening that enemies can exploit to get a free attack on you. If you are standing next to the same enemy, but this time he has Combat Reflexes (and you don't know that) and you just saw him take an AoO against your friend who ran by, you might think "Hey, I can drink a potion now, he has used up his AoO for the round" but he can hit you this time because he is capable of making multiple AoOs. Whether or not he can make an AoO against you does not change the fact that your drinking a potion provokes, and he is still a threat. So, even in the first round of combat, if you stand next to an enemy who has not yet taken his turn and then you drink a potion, you are still Provoking an Attack of Opportunity. And how could you know whether he has Combat Reflexes or not? Is he somehow not a threat to you still? He very well may have Combat Reflexes, and maybe his turn was actually before you but he was just delaying or readying an action? Unless you are psychic, everything that is not your friend and that can reach you is a threat, and threatens. Even allies threaten you, if they care to.
Leilond 06-08-07, 05:44 AM	I think now you are misinterpreting "provoke". You can provoke attacks of opportunity any number of times in a round. You move, cast spells, drink potions, stand up whatever. It has nothing to do with the people who take, or, perform the attack of opportunity against you. If you are standing next to an enemy, and he does not have Combat Reflexes, and he has already used his AoO on your friend that just ran by him last round, does this mean you can no longer "provoke" an attack of opportunity? No, you still provoke, that particular enemy just can't follow through on the AoO against you. His buddy that is also next to you though, is perfectly capable of taking an AoO against you, because provoking is not specific to individual enemies, it is something you caused. When you provoke, you are making an opening that enemies can exploit to get a free attack on you. If you are standing next to the same enemy, but this time he has Combat Reflexes (and you don't know that) and you just saw him take an AoO against your friend who ran by, you might think "Hey, I can drink a potion now, he has used up his AoO for the round" but he can hit you this time because he is capable of making multiple AoOs. Whether or not he can make an AoO against you does not change the fact that your drinking a potion provokes, and he is still a threat. So, even in the first round of combat, if you stand next to an enemy who has not yet taken his turn and then you drink a potion, you are still Provoking an Attack of Opportunity. And how could you know whether he has Combat Reflexes or not? Is he somehow not a threat to you still? He very well may have Combat Reflexes, and maybe his turn was actually before you but he was just delaying or readying an action? Unless you are psychic, everything that is not your friend and that can reach you is a threat, and threatens. Even allies threaten you, if they care to. Perfect, I understand The rule is (or the way we think the rule work is): You threaten all square in withing your reach BUT You do not threaten if something prevent you from acting (dazed) You do not threaten if something prevent you from attacking (nauseated) You do not threaten if something prevent you to threaten (grappling) The fact that you already acted or you didn't acted yet isn't important (flat-footed characters threaten) The fact that you can or cannot make an attack of opportunity against someone do not mean you do not threaten that enemy (enemy under cover)
Egres 06-08-07, 09:47 AM	How can you threaten if you can't make any kind of attack? In order to be able to threaten you must able to make some kind of attack. If it's your opponent turn, and you are flat footed, you are out of luck, and don't threaten. @Leilond: there's a similar thread elsewhere: don't open double threads, especially if you are already partecipating in one of them. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=856502
Leilond 06-08-07, 10:02 AM	How can you threaten if you can't make any kind of attack? In order to be able to threaten you must able to make some kind of attack. If it's your opponent turn, and you are flat footed, you are out of luck, and don't threaten. This is not how we (8 person on this thread) thinks the rules work. And by the way, you can attack an opponent on his turn using a "readied action" even if your flat-footed. By the way, we think that the rules do not require you have to attack the enemy in the moment, only you're not in a condition that prevent you to make any attack, no matter of the turn. @Leilond: there's a similar thread elsewhere: don't open double threads, especially if you are already partecipating in one of them. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=856502 I'll stop to post there then. I think that "DM rule counseling" is a better place to talk about this I prefer to know "DMs opinions" instead of "Character optimizators" ;) I suppose you'll stop to post here or there too
Kouk 06-08-07, 10:30 AM	Website Glossary for Flat Footed: Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. If you did not threaten any squares, then it would say so. All it says is you cannot take AoOs. Rules of the Game:When Is a Square Threatened? Since an attack of opportunity involves a threatened square, a short discussion of exactly when a square is "threatened" is in order: * A creature threatens all squares into which it can make an armed melee attack. To be "armed," a creature must wield at least one weapon, either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon. Most creatures have at least 5 feet of reach, so they threaten all squares adjacent to their spaces (including diagonally). If a creature has a reach of more than 5 feet (by virtue of its size or because it wields a reach weapon, or both) it threatens more squares. A creature can attack into its own space, and so it threatens that square or squares as well. See page 149 in the Player's Handbook for a discussion of a creature's space. Still says nothing about you don't threaten when flat-footed. Threaten, from Website Glossary: threaten To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own. Source: PHB Still, nothing about flat footed. Threatened Square, Website Glossary:threatened square A square within an opponent's reach. Generally, characters threaten all adjacent squares, though reach weapons can alter this range. Certain actions provoke attacks of opportunity when taken within a threatened square. Source: PHB Still nothing. All About Attacks of Opportunity: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
Marcus Majarra 06-08-07, 01:02 PM	That's correct. Threatening an opponent isn't a matter of circumstance. It's a matter of positioning and reach. This is what "being able to make an attack" refers to.
Egres 06-08-07, 01:32 PM	Website Glossary for Flat Footed: Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. So, do you threaten if you use the Total Defense action? It doesn't say anything regarding threatening. And by the way, you can attack an opponent on his turn using a "readied action" even if your flat-footed. By the way, we think that the rules do not require you have to attack the enemy in the moment, only you're not in a condition that prevent you to make any attack, no matter of the turn. So, we have a FAQ that is wrong, isn't it Leilond? Does uncanny dodge make you immune to feinting in combat? No. If uncanny dodge said “you never lose your Dexterity bonus to AC,” the answer would be yes, but that’s not what it says. Uncanny dodge allows you to retain your Dexterity bonus to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. Although a feint creates a very similar situation (by disallowing the defender from using his Dexterity bonus to AC), it doesn’t specifically render the character flat-footed. (For example, the target of a successful feint still threatens the feinting character.) Thus, uncanny dodge wouldn’t negate the effect. This is not how we (8 person on this thread) thinks the rules work. Should I become a believer only for this reason? Besides that, let me underline that Pendergrass post is really valid, and your reply to it was corrected by Kouk. So? I prefer to know "DMs opinions" instead of "Character optimizators" Actually, what you ironically call "character optimizators" are the best knowers of the D&D rules. That's correct. Threatening an opponent isn't a matter of circumstance. It's a matter of positioning and reach. This is what "being able to make an attack" refers to. So, by your reasoning, a nauseated creature threatens? It doesn't say anything about threatening. What about a stunned one? If I'm in a circumstance where I can't attack the squares around me, how can I threaten? Besides that, you say that you are able to make an attack...where you can make an attack: you aren't saying anything. I'm not asking "where", but "if". In my interpretation you are able to make an attack when the circumstances don't prevent it. And, in fact, this is what the rules say: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. If you can't make a melee attack you don't threaten. This is the reason why you don't threaten when you aren't able to attack, i.e. stunned and so on. Another point that I would be glad to be addressed: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. This is what "armed" means by the RAW.
Leilond 06-08-07, 02:31 PM	So, do you threaten if you use the Total Defense action? It doesn't say anything regarding threatening. So, we have a FAQ that is wrong, isn't it Leilond? Well... it happens. If a FAQ it is against a rule we can consider it wrong or we can consider it "a new rule". It is a matter of choices Does uncanny dodge make you immune to feinting in combat? No. If uncanny dodge said “you never lose your Dexterity bonus to AC,” the answer would be yes, but that’s not what it says. Uncanny dodge allows you to retain your Dexterity bonus to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. Although a feint creates a very similar situation (by disallowing the defender from using his Dexterity bonus to AC), it doesn’t specifically render the character flat-footed. (For example, the target of a successful feint still threatens the feinting character.) Thus, uncanny dodge wouldn’t negate the effect. You can choose to ignore the bold part because against the rules or make it a new rule It won't be the firs wrong FAQ out there... there are dozens Should I become a believer only for this reason? Absolutely not!! But if 2 people have an opinion and 10 have another, you can consider that pheraps, and I repeat pheraps, you misunderstood the rules Or pheraps you're right, I don't know... I opened this thread because I wasn't 100% sure Actually, what you ironically call "character optimizators" are the best knowers of the D&D rules. Pheraps... or pheraps they are the best knowers of "character creatiion" D&D rules DMs usually better know the all consequences and interconnection of the rules... and have the experience of "game guiding" that make them think about the rule instead of simply use them to gain personal benefit DMs aren't "better people", but their opinions is more like by me So, by your reasoning, a nauseated creature threatens? It doesn't say anything about threatening. Nauseated creature cannot attack, NEVER. Flat-footed character cannot make AoO What about a stunned one? Same as above. You cannot attack, NEVER If I'm in a circumstance where I can't attack the squares around me, how can I threaten? Because you read the rules and understand something different from us. We understand that you don't need to attack during opponent turn to threaten that opponent. Besides that, you say that you are able to make an attack...where you can make an attack: you aren't saying anything. Sorry, didn't understand this I'm not asking "where", but "if". In my interpretation you are able to make an attack when the circumstances don't prevent it. And, in fact, this is what the rules say: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. If you can't make a melee attack you don't threaten. It say exactly the opposite. No matter if it isn't your turn and you cannot attack because of this. Even when it is not your action That's the key If the rule was only You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, You where right But they added , even when it is not your action That specify that it isn't important if it isn't your turn This is the reason why you don't threaten when you aren't able to attack, i.e. stunned and so on. You do not threaten when you're stunned because you cannot perform ANY form of attack, not only AoO Another point that I would be glad to be addressed: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. This is what "armed" means by the RAW. And? So you do not threaten when unarmed because it is writte this If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares On the "threatened square rules" here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm And the part you quoted is only a consequence of the rule I quoted
PenderGrass 06-08-07, 04:11 PM	You do not threaten when you're stunned because you cannot perform ANY form of attack, not only AoO.... Before your first initiative count happens, you cannot normally perform ANY form of attack, either. :dragon: ****
Marcus Majarra 06-09-07, 02:56 AM	Actually, I'll disagree with the general tendency and allow nauseated and stunned characters to threaten opponents (although the latter is less probable, since you drop everything held when you become stunned). Everyone seems to be taking the entire "you threaten all squares into which you can make an attack" statement out of context. The entire section on threatened squares deals with reach, not combat circumstances: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Reach Weapons Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more. The very first sentence of this section deals with squares within your character's reach, as evidenced by the second sentence: "generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)." The last sentence of that paragraph also clarifies that you need to be armed to threaten any kind of square. The subsection on reach weapons even elaborates on how reach extends the squares threatened. In any case, being unable to act in no way makes you unable to make an attack into any given square. What makes you unable to make an attack into any given square is to be beyond that square's reach.
maharai23 06-09-07, 03:03 AM	You cannot threaten if you cannot attack. Also, you cannot threaten if you do not have a weapon that qualifies as a threatening weapon. (example, fists). In such instances you do not provide flanking bonuses. You may only provide flanking bonuses to an ally if they are opposite you, and you threaten with a melee weapon. The ally may shoot with a ranged weapon if he likes, but, if he does, you will not gain the flank bonus, only him. Also, while a bow threatens a great many spaces, it makes AoO's to none. Ever.
Leilond 06-09-07, 03:25 AM	Thanks all guys I understand the two way of reading the rules now I will talk with my players, but I suppose we'll decide that you can provide a flanking bonus to an ally against an enemy that has cover relative to you I will suggest to my players to provide flanking bonus while flat-footed Obvioulsy no conditions that prevent you to act (stunned) or attack (nauseated) let you threaten any square Thanks all guys ;)
Egres 06-09-07, 03:56 AM	In any case, being unable to act in no way makes you unable to make an attack into any given square. I'll admit this sentence sounds illogical to me.
Egres 06-09-07, 04:02 AM	Nauseated creature cannot attack, NEVER. Actualy, nauseated creatures cannot attack only because the authors assume that with a move action left you cannot attack, but we know there are ways to attack even with a move action left. So, your point is flawed. Not to mention that even in Total Defense you don't threaten, even if it's not specified. So you do not threaten when unarmed because it is writte this Nope, it says something more, it says what "armed" means in the context of unarmed strikes. And threatening appears nowhere. Read it again.
Leilond 06-09-07, 05:56 AM	Actualy, nauseated creatures cannot attack only because the authors assume that with a move action left you cannot attack, but we know there are ways to attack even with a move action left. So, your point is flawed. Absolutely not. It is forbitten because it is written. "Nauseated Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack" HERE: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#nauseated Not to mention that even in Total Defense you don't threaten, even if it's not specified. It is written, look better in the manual... you'll find it... If you don't find let me know, I will suggest you the page Nope, it says something more, it says what "armed" means in the context of unarmed strikes. And threatening appears nowhere. Read it again. Sure, but you find the meaning of thretening in the proper chapter where is written If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares And ONLY for this reason you do not threaten when unarmed, because it is written there. ONLY for that rule
Marcus Majarra 06-09-07, 12:11 PM	I'll admit this sentence sounds illogical to me. It only sounds illogical because you're arbitrarily looking at only a part of the sentence. It's not about being able to attack; it's about being able to make an attack into a given square, which is governed by reach. Circumstances that might prevent you from acting are irrelevant to reach.
Kouk 06-09-07, 03:43 PM	Also, while a bow threatens a great many spaces, it makes AoO's to none. Ever. A bow actually threatens zero spaces, despite being able to attack into many. Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Bows don't make melee attacks, and so do not threaten (barring strange variants like stuff from Races of the Wild).
Kouk 06-09-07, 03:56 PM	Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Let's look at it this way: "If it was my turn right now, could I, given what I am armed with, choose to make a melee attack at that square?" If the answer is yes, then you threaten it. Certainly with the flat footed example, if it was your turn that round (and you were armed), you would be able to attack. I would say, if you are unable to make any kind of melee attack due to some kind of effect beyond your control such as paralysis, then you don't threaten as long as you are paralyzed. If you ask "could I choose to attack if it was my turn right now?" the answer would be no, because you are paralyzed. With a Total Defense action, you have chosen to forgo your attacks for that round, but you could have chosen to attack, and if it was your turn again you would be free to attack. In this instance you still threaten because you still "can make a melee attack" - you are actively participating in the combat and could have chosen to attack at any time. Total Defense happens to bar you from taking AoOs, but your enemy should know you are still there and still fighting - and can attack at your leisure when it is your turn, hence you can still flank. If someone casts the spell Snake's Swiftness on a friend using Total Defense, which gives a free immediate attack, the friend could choose to attack at that point. Total Defense only bars attacking on your turn because it is a Standard Action.
Blackstorm_SK 06-09-07, 10:00 PM	Let's look at it this way: "If it was my turn right now, could I, given what I am armed with, choose to make a melee attack at that square?" If the answer is yes, then you threaten it. So, you think that if you're in your turn or not doesn't matter. But, if you say so, I want to make a regular attack when it's not my turn. Or even a full round. It doesn't matter if it's not my turn. I want to move, too. Yeah, it's not my turn, but it's not important for you. So? Certainly with the flat footed example, if it was your turn that round (and you were armed), you would be able to attack. Yeah. But if youre flat footed, when it's your turn, you're no more flat-footed. I would say, if you are unable to make any kind of melee attack due to some kind of effect beyond your control such as paralysis, then you don't threaten as long as you are paralyzed. If you ask "could I choose to attack if it was my turn right now?" the answer would be no, because you are paralyzed. Oh, 'r you kidding, yeah? I want to underline that the fact that's actually not your turn, is something beyond your control that make you unable to make regulat attack. With a Total Defense action, you have chosen to forgo your attacks for that round, but you could have chosen to attack, and if it was your turn again you would be free to attack. In this instance you still threaten because you still "can make a melee attack" - you are actively participating in the combat and could have chosen to attack at any time. Total Defense happens to bar you from taking AoOs, but your enemy should know you are still there and still fighting - and can attack at your leisure when it is your turn, hence you can still flank. Rotfl! So, you're saying that you can say that I threaten in total defense, only 'cause in the next turn I can do an attack? And if the combat ends? Or what about if I become paralyzed? Or if I die? Yeah. I get the total defense. During the enemy turn, I die. How can you say if I threaten or not in the time between my round and my death? Funny. If someone casts the spell Snake's Swiftness on a friend using Total Defense, which gives a free immediate attack, the friend could choose to attack at that point. Total Defense only bars attacking on your turn because it is a Standard Action. Oh, yeah... lolling theory. So... Can you underline the phrases in SRD, or in PHB in wich it state that if you're in total defense you cannot attack because you don't have a standard action left?
Kouk 06-10-07, 12:35 AM	So, you think that if you're in your turn or not doesn't matter. No, I don't think so. I know so, because that is exactly the definition. Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Oh, yeah... lolling theory. So... Can you underline the phrases in SRD, or in PHB in wich it state that if you're in total defense you cannot attack because you don't have a standard action left? SRD: Total Defense You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can’t combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense. Actually, I would rather you underline the part where it says you can't attack at all in total defense. All I can see is, the exact reason you can't attack right then is because you have no more Standard Actions left. Or maybe you can underline the part that says you no longer threaten in Total Defense, if that is easier for you to find? If a Fighter drinks a potion, thus taking up his Standard Action, surely he isn't planning on attacking that round? If he uses up his AoO, does he cease to threaten enemies in that instance? He can't attack at all until his next round right?
Anathema 06-10-07, 02:00 PM	Let's look at it this way: "If it was my turn right now, could I, given what I am armed with, choose to make a melee attack at that square?" If the answer is yes, then you threaten it. Yes, exactly right. The "...even when it's not your turn" is a qualifier on the phrase "...can make a melee attack...", because if left without this qualifier, people will presume that you only threaten when it is your turn. Thinking of it in terms of "If it was my turn now, could I make an armed melee attack, in the current status I'm in?" is perfect, I wish I thought of it first. This also means that you threaten before your first turn in combat, because you are simply flat-footed, and being flat-footed only prevents AoO's and not attacks completely. (I double checked, PHB 137)
Blackstorm_SK 06-10-07, 04:54 PM	No, I don't think so. I know so, because that is exactly the definition. Yeah... the knowledge keeper is coming. Behold his 22 Int score. And you are absolutely sure that your thought is correct? On what basis you can say it? Actually, I would rather you underline the part where it says you can't attack at all in total defense. All I can see is, the exact reason you can't attack right then is because you have no more Standard Actions left. Or maybe you can underline the part that says you no longer threaten in Total Defense, if that is easier for you to find? Funny. Let's play: if you underline what I've ask to underline, I'll do the same with your question. Btw, I hope you know that if you cannot do what I've asked to do, ask me to do some other thing is not a good defense... Yeah? If a Fighter drinks a potion, thus taking up his Standard Action, surely he isn't planning on attacking that round? So? If he uses up his AoO, does he cease to threaten enemies in that instance? No. Why should he cease to threaten? The fact that he has used up his AoOs, is a matter of combat ability. His enemy don't know if he can or cannot make AoOs, so why they should be feel safe? He can't attack at all until his next round right? Your defense is absolutely invalid. Try another trick. Maybe you're more lucky. Yes, exactly right. The "...even when it's not your turn" is a qualifier on the phrase "...can make a melee attack...", because if left without this qualifier, people will presume that you only threaten when it is your turn. Yeah. But if is not your turn the only melee attack allowed to you is AoO. Thinking of it in terms of "If it was my turn now, could I make an armed melee attack, in the current status I'm in?" is perfect, I wish I thought of it first. This also means that you threaten before your first turn in combat, because you are simply flat-footed, and being flat-footed only prevents AoO's and not attacks completely. (I double checked, PHB 137) I'm rotfling. You how can it supposed you threaten if you cannot make attack at all? Or you want to erase the status of "out of your turn" because considering it make your theory falling?
thondar 06-10-07, 04:59 PM	Q.Total cover prevents any attack against you. You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. etc etc A. [...] You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover enough?
Marcus Majarra 06-10-07, 05:25 PM	I'm rotfling. You how can it supposed you threaten if you cannot make attack at all? Or you want to erase the status of "out of your turn" because considering it make your theory falling? Threatening is about being a threat to your opponents, which is a matter of being armed and having your opponents within reach. Your opponent doesn't know whether you're actually going to attack him or not (or even if you're capable of making an attack). As such, you are a threat to him as long as your weapon is within striking range.
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 02:55 AM	Originally Posted by faq pg 62 Q.Total cover prevents any attack against you. You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. etc etc A. [...] You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover -- enough? You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of opportunity (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook), the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath. Do you mean that? Oh, come. Really you think I'm so dumb? Read the underlined passage that you maliciously "forget" to quote. If you cannot make attack, and here the faq refers to REGULAR attacks, you can't threathen. Oh, don't say me that if you cannot make attack, regular attacks, you still threaten, 'cause you're said that if you cannot attack in your standard action you don't threat. So, it simply says that you still threaten the squares around you but the ones against you have total cover. Naturally, it prevents you from making even AoOs in those squares, so when is not your action you don't threat anyway. Go ahead, and try again. Enough, young boy? Threatening is about being a threat to your opponents, which is a matter of being armed and having your opponents within reach. Your opponent doesn't know whether you're actually going to attack him or not (or even if you're capable of making an attack). As such, you are a threat to him as long as your weapon is within striking range. Oh-ho. We have a good point. So you're saying that you cannot know if you're in your turn? And you're saying that if you can see a cover you don't know that your enemy cannot make AoOs? Wow. There's a lot that you don't know, when you're in combat. Come on, try again.
Egres 06-11-07, 03:55 AM	It only sounds illogical because you're arbitrarily looking at only a part of the sentence. It's not about being able to attack; it's about being able to make an attack into a given square, which is governed by reach. Circumstances that might prevent you from acting are irrelevant to reach. Marcus, you should know that the PHB explicitely contradicts you. With a Total Defense action, you have chosen to forgo your attacks for that round, but you could have chosen to attack, and if it was your turn again you would be free to attack. In this instance you still threaten because you still "can make a melee attack" - you are actively participating in the combat and could have chosen to attack at any time. Total Defense happens to bar you from taking AoOs, but your enemy should know you are still there and still fighting - and can attack at your leisure when it is your turn, hence you can still flank. Unoftunately the rules don't agree with you. Active Shield Defense Your expert use of your shield allows you to strike at vulnerable foes even when you forgo your own attacks in favor of defense. Prerequisite: Proficiency with shields, Shield Specialization. Benefit: When fighting defensively and using a shield, you do not take the standard fighting defensively penalties on attacks of opportunity. When using the total defense action and a shield, you still threaten the area around you as normal. You can make attacks of opportunity with a -4 penalty. Special: A fighter can select Active Shield Defense as one of his fighter bonus feats. Normal: You take a -4 penalty on all attacks while fighting defensively. You cannot attack while using the total defense action. If he uses up his AoO, does he cease to threaten enemies in that instance? He can't attack at all until his next round right? If a spellcaster uses all of his spells, can he cast spells? Can you understand d the different meanings of "can"? you don't have enough money to buy a newspaper cause you have spent it on donuts: can you read? enough? Actually, citing a FAQ when this thread is based upon a wrong FAQ is not a good idea, you know. Try a different way.
Kouk 06-11-07, 06:38 AM	Threatening is about being a threat to your opponents, which is a matter of being armed and having your opponents within reach. Your opponent doesn't know whether you're actually going to attack him or not (or even if you're capable of making an attack). As such, you are a threat to him as long as your weapon is within striking range. I see where you are coming from, and I used to play this way. It seems to me to add a bit more -- flavor at least, to allow a teammate to disable an enemy to prevent flanking. Sort of like "Don't worry about this guy, I'll take care of him" or something. Good catch Egres, I guess I will reevaluate the Total Defense action. Apparently it is clearly visible to everyone that you can't attack at that moment. And with my examples from the previous post, I was being facetious a lot of the time. A fighter still threatens when he drinks a potion, of course. Blackstorm: You still have not actually stated your own positions, you seem to have just joined this thread to attack people (in a juvenile fashion). I can not actually understand any of your last post, maybe you could clarify what you mean? And you might want to seek professional help if you are unable to control your "rotfl'ing". :P
Leilond 06-11-07, 07:17 AM	No. Why should he cease to threaten? The fact that he has used up his AoOs, is a matter of combat ability. His enemy don't know if he can or cannot make AoOs, so why they should be feel safe? I thought we was looking for "written rules" and not strange deductions "Combat ability"? What is that? It isn't a definition by the RAW. It has nothing to do with "rules" And "Enemy doesn't know if he can or cannot make"? Does it exist in the RAW? And if the enemy is blind? How can he know that I'm flat-footed because balancing? How can he know I didn't acted yet (pheraps I already acted and drinked a potioin)? And if the enemy is "reading my mind"? Can he know I finished my "AoO"? You're using two definitions (combat ability and "enemy perception") that have nothing to do with rules We read the phrase "even if it is not your action". That means "doesen't matter it is not your turn". Pheraps you understand something else, it isn't a problem... until you don't start flames that we don't need only because you understand something different from us... You could be right, but that doesn't give you the right to be so aggressive I think, we are here to find a common place or at least to obtain different opinions and take the one we like more... relax friend
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 08:23 AM	Blackstorm: You still have not actually stated your own positions, you seem to have just joined this thread to attack people (in a juvenile fashion). I can not actually understand any of your last post, maybe you could clarify what you mean? And you might want to seek professional help if you are unable to control your "rotfl'ing". :P Lol :) I'm sorry... It's not a personal rivality. Only that this post is the continue of another thread, posted in an italian board. So, you know, the same people that joined the italian topic, are joined this... And I'm little... sarcastic about a lot of those... 'cause these arguments are the same posted on "italian side"... I'll try to mod myself ;) BtW, I'm agree with the Egres' statement: you threaten only the squares into wich you can actually make an attack, of any kind. If it's your turn, we're talking of regulare attack (since you're acting, other can't provoke AoOs), but if it's not you turn, the only kind of attack you can do in that situation is an AoO... so if somethig (i.e. cover) prevent you from doing AoOs when it's not your turn, you don't threaten anything.
Leilond 06-11-07, 08:35 AM	Lol :) I'm sorry... It's not a personal rivality. Only that this post is the continue of another thread, posted in an italian board. So, you know, the same people that joined the italian topic, are joined this I opened the thread, I told to Italian members of that forum about this thread... you joined it. You should know that I would say in this thread the same things I said in the Italian one!
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 08:35 AM	You're using two definitions (combat ability and "enemy perception") that have nothing to do with rules Uhm... I though that what I say was for better explain myself. Wrong way, really. Sorry. Leave up perception. We read the phrase "even if it is not your action". That means "doesen't matter it is not your turn". But you can't read in this way. If it's not your turn, you can't actually do regular attacks. Your only option is to make AoO. And if something deny you AoO, what kind of threat you should represent? Or you want to state that even if you actually can't AoO, and cannot make reg attacks because is not your turn, a spellcaster in your reach should worry about something that you really cannot do? Pheraps you understand something else, it isn't a problem... until you don't start flames that we don't need only because you understand something different from us... You could be right, but that doesn't give you the right to be so aggressive I think, we are here to find a common place or at least to obtain different opinions and take the one we like more... relax friend Sorry. Is not my intention to start a flame... I'm only... somewhat little bored about some people... It's my fault. After a week or so threading about this topic (on another board), I'm not really patient... :P I opened the thread, I told to Italian members of that forum about this thread... you joined it. You should know that I would say in this thread the same things I said in the Italian one! So? I cannot be bored? And I can note that you don't want to continue the yet opened thread of wich Egres have told you. So, it seems to me that you're not fair-playing.
Leilond 06-11-07, 08:40 AM	As I said. I opened this post I told two Italian poster about this thread and to come You joined this thread and now you're tired of me that opened it? Why did you joined then? You should know my positions! By the way But you can't read in this way. I can and I do. If it's not your turn, you can't actually do regular attacks. Your only option is to make AoO. And if something deny you AoO, what kind of threat you should represent? Or you want to state that even if you actually can't AoO, and cannot make reg attacks because is not your turn, a spellcaster in your reach should worry about something that you really cannot do? Only because you misunderstood that phrase. Your deduciont are natural consequence of the misunderstanding of a phrase This is my opinion, obvious. I THINK you misunderstood, that does't means you did So? I cannot be bored? And I can note that you don't want to continue the yet opened thread of wich Egres have told you. So, it seems to me that you're not fair-playing. Egres asked me to stop posting there, I stopped. Don't talk about things you don't know about. Egres can defend himself I think, and if he asked to stop posting in his thread I'm enought kind to stay in the mine
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 09:22 AM	As I said. I opened this post I told two Italian poster about this thread and to come You joined this thread and now you're tired of me that opened it? Why did you joined then? You should know my positions! Personal amusement. Not to speak of the fact that I think you're wrong. And so I want to say my opinion. sorry for aggrssivity, but you know, I'm keep on fire too easy, sometime. If it's not your turn, you can't actually do regular attacks. Your only option is to make AoO. And if something deny you AoO, what kind of threat you should represent? Or you want to state that even if you actually can't AoO, and cannot make reg attacks because is not your turn, a spellcaster in your reach should worry about something that you really cannot do? Only because you misunderstood that phrase. Your deduciont are natural consequence of the misunderstanding of a phrase Yeah, I've get it. But I'm confused: out of your turn, if you can't make attack, why I should worry about you? You're saying that I can cast a spell, I'm threatened, but I do not incur in consequences of being threatend. It seems not exactly coerent... I mean: let's go with an example. Fig vs Mage. War get his round, and move near to mage, making his attack. But the Fighter get a wrong tactic: in this position the mage as cover from Fighter. Now is the Mage's turn. The Fighter has at least one AoO. Now, you say that the mage is threatened. But the mage can cast a spell without making any concentration check, and without worrying about any AoO. How can the Fighter his supposed to threaten, if he actually can't threaten?
Leilond 06-11-07, 09:41 AM	First point you're talking about logic, we were searching about a RULE answer We know that rules can be against logic sometimes. Second point But let's talk about logic then A round is 6 second. The difference between your turn and mine can be 1 single initiative step that can be something like 1/10 of second. This means that when you cast your spell I'm swinging my sword and it can be very strange that you don't feel threatened nor that you hadn't to pay attention to me so that my friend on the other side get his +2 for flanking Logically speaking (that isn't our real goal, but could help) a warrior that will swing in less than half a second is a serious threat. Third point Always logically speaking (only because you started this approach) As the manuals say, an "attack roll" doesn't represent a single swing, but 6 seconds of feinting and swinging looking for an hole in opponent defence, and the attack roll represent only the final result of these 6 seconds of combat A character that swings, looking for an hole in your defense for 6 seconds is a serious threat, and if you don't pay attention to him, distracting from his ally on the other side, you must give him at least a bonus on his attack roll Forth point out of your turn You continue to point out this concept, that you know I consider totally not important and a consequence of a misunderstanding of a rule. You cannot make any form of attack different from AoO, out of your turn (except prepared action to be honest) but that's not important because the rule tell us it isn't to be taken into account Fifth point We're starting again what we already said in the Italian forum. I think this isn't usefull at all... for no one. I will suggest to stop posting (post your final answer to my post if you want) to let other users to give their opinion, eventually responding to these users We already know we won't find a common place, because we didn't find one in 50 pages using our mother language ;) If you want to debate with me, you can send me an email or a PM, we'll continue private. If you REALLY want I respond here, ask and I will Sixth point As you see, we are not so crazy as some of you defined us. This way of reading the rules isn't so "unusual". Different posters (more than the half) read the rules as us. This absolutely doesn't means we are right, but at least it is not so unbelivable
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 10:36 AM	First point you're talking about logic, we were searching about a RULE answer We know that rules can be against logic sometimes. Yay, but searching a different approach can be helpful. I remember someone ask me: "But you could hit someone on the other side of a little wall." So, I want only try another point of view. Second point But let's talk about logic then A round is 6 second. The difference between your turn and mine can be 1 single initiative step that can be something like 1/10 of second. This means that when you cast your spell I'm swinging my sword and it can be very strange that you don't feel threatened nor that you hadn't to pay attention to me so that my friend on the other side get his +2 for flanking Logically speaking (that isn't our real goal, but could help) a warrior that will swing in less than half a second is a serious threat. Yeah. But I'm not saying that you don't threat. In fact, in your turn, you threaten the mage. I only think that an obstacle like a cover, prevent you from being efficient in your attack. So you can't hit so swiftly (an AoO is much like a free o swift action rather than a move or standard action, in time of execution terms) avoiding obstacles (you know, I'm feel pretty unthreatened if my cover is 9/10, don't you think?). Third point Always logically speaking (only because you started this approach) As the manuals say, an "attack roll" doesn't represent a single swing, but 6 seconds of feinting and swinging looking for an hole in opponent defence, and the attack roll represent only the final result of these 6 seconds of combat A character that swings, looking for an hole in your defense for 6 seconds is a serious threat, and if you don't pay attention to him, distracting from his ally on the other side, you must give him at least a bonus on his attack roll Yeah. And here is where the logic impact with the solid wall of combat mechanics. As you say, the logic not always match the rules. But, let me say: I'm agree that you're a serious threat 'cause your swinging'n'feinting for 6 seconds. But it's even true that those 6 seconds are rappresented, in game terms, from your turn. Pretty unrealistic, yeah, but it works. So I think that the AoO represent something that you can do as "blinded strike", or somewhat similar... You're seing the mage casting, so you try a hit on the fly, hoping to strike. But if he have cover, this is a sort of obstacle. Now, we can debate on the fact that while a 9/10 cover is a major protection (so I really don't worry about the big guy on the other side, cause find an hole in the cover AND in my defenses with a strike "on the fly" is pretty impossible), a 1/4 is a big lesser protection... but the cover has to follow the same rule, 1/4 or 9/10 doesn't matter... Forth point You continue to point out this concept, that you know I consider totally not important and a consequence of a misunderstanding of a rule. You cannot make any form of attack different from AoO, out of your turn (except prepared action to be honest) but that's not important because the rule tell us it isn't to be taken into account In your opinion the rule say that. The proof is that not all are agree ;) A little ot: a prepared action is not an "out of turn" thing, cause you use the move action to prepare and delay your standard action waiting the "right moment", so to speak, when someone make an action that trigger your action... Fifth point We're starting again what we already said in the Italian forum. I think this isn't usefull at all... for no one. I will suggest to stop posting (post your final answer to my post if you want) to let other users to give their opinion, eventually responding to these users We already know we won't find a common place, because we didn't find one in 50 pages using our mother language ;) If you want to debate with me, you can send me an email or a PM, we'll continue private. If you REALLY want I respond here, ask and I will Yeah, I know the topic :) But I think even that a reader on this board should can evaluate not only your points, but mine too.. :) If you want to reply, do it, it's your choice... Sixth point As you see, we are not so crazy as some of you defined us. This way of reading the rules isn't so "unusual". Different posters (more than the half) read the rules as us. This absolutely doesn't means we are right, but at least it is not so unbelivable Not so unbelivable, yeah, I'm agree. But somewhat... How I can see... variable... It creates a lot of exceptions...
Leilond 06-11-07, 10:55 AM	Yeah. But I'm not saying that you don't threat. In fact, in your turn, you threaten the mage. I only think that an obstacle like a cover, prevent you from being efficient in your attack. So you can't hit so swiftly (an AoO is much like a free o swift action rather than a move or standard action, in time of execution terms) avoiding obstacles (you know, I'm feel pretty unthreatened if my cover is 9/10, don't you think?). No, I don't think. You must pay attention to me, and this give my friend on the other side an advantage. AoO isn't a "swift attack" but it is as all other attacks, a rapresentation on what it happens during the turn. Yeah. And here is where the logic impact with the solid wall of combat mechanics. As you say, the logic not always match the rules. But, let me say: I'm agree that you're a serious threat 'cause your swinging'n'feinting for 6 seconds. But it's even true that those 6 seconds are rappresented, in game terms, from your turn.Pretty unrealistic, yeah, but it works. Sorry but no. A turn start at your initiative and end just before your next initiative, as the manuals says and as logic will suggest. 6 second AREN'T rapresented by your turn, or 10 fighters will need 60 second for a turn. 6 second are rapresented by ALL the turns of ALL the combatants. This the manuals says... pretty unrealistic, but that is So I think that the AoO represent something that you can do as "blinded strike", or somewhat similar... You're seing the mage casting, so you try a hit on the fly, hoping to strike. But if he have cover, this is a sort of obstacle. Now, we can debate on the fact that while a 9/10 cover is a major protection (so I really don't worry about the big guy on the other side, cause find an hole in the cover AND in my defenses with a strike "on the fly" is pretty impossible), a 1/4 is a big lesser protection... but the cover has to follow the same rule, 1/4 or 9/10 doesn't matter... I don't think AoO like you do, so I don't agree with all this part In your opinion the rule say that. The proof is that not all are agree That's clear. Sorry, I have to add every time "for what I understand" ;) A little ot: a prepared action is not an "out of turn" thing, cause you use the move action to prepare and delay your standard action waiting the "right moment", so to speak, when someone make an action that trigger your action... That's not exactly the definition of the manuals, but yes, it was a "provocation" But I think even that a reader on this board should can evaluate not only your points, but mine too.. FPRIVATE If you want to reply, do it, it's your choice... People could get bored listening me and you posting ;) Not so unbelivable, yeah, I'm agree. But somewhat... How I can see... variable... It creates a lot of exceptions... You see exceptions where I don't see none. You see exceptions only because you "misunderstood" ( :P ) the rules. One day, pheraps, you'll understand correctly the rule and you'll stop seeing any exception (accept my joke ;) ) I see an exception in your interpretation too. You say "you do not threaten if you cannot make an AoO" but then you say "you still threaten when you run out of AoO". Without adding some "not in the rules deduction" you cannot support in anyway your interpretation. This not make it wrong, but surely not so RAW as you would like. I will surely accept more an interpretation that don't let you threaten if you cannot make AoO, aslo if run out of them, than an interpretation that need a "adding rule" or "arbitrary deduction" like your actual one. Still wrong for me, but more by the RAW than now
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 11:31 AM	Some misunderstands in my previous post. No, I don't think. You must pay attention to me, and this give my friend on the other side an advantage. AoO isn't a "swift attack" but it is as all other attacks, a rapresentation on what it happens during the turn. Wrong example, sorry. Just for explaining: an enemy that run near to you (with a 30 ft speed he can make a 120 ft move), provoke AoO. If he pass trought only one of your threatened squares, it supposed to staying in that square for [(6 s/120 ft)*5 ft]=1/4=0.25 secs... He provoke AoO... not so much time to it. This is what I mena whit a "swift attack": it must be more swift than the other (a 20th lev fighter can make 4 attack with a greatsword, that is 1,5 secs per attack... pretty short, but proportionated). Sorry but no. A turn start at your initiative and end just before your next initiative, as the manuals says and as logic will suggest. 6 second AREN'T rapresented by your turn, or 10 fighters will need 60 second for a turn. 6 second are rapresented by ALL the turns of ALL the combatants. This the manuals says... pretty unrealistic, but that is yeah, I don't mean this. But the 6 seconds are for you, and for all other enemy. the rounds came in the same time, I'm agree. What I mean is that, before or after you act (in rules terms, when is not your turn) is not real time. Is only a mere simplification. And the AoO's represent the moments in wich your enemy make an action that can distract it more tha normal. That's not exactly the definition of the manuals, but yes, it was a "provocation" I don't post the definition 'cause I think we all know it... ;) You see exceptions where I don't see none. You see exceptions only because you "misunderstood" ( :P ) the rules. One day, pheraps, you'll understand correctly the rule and you'll stop seeing any exception (accept my joke ;) ) I quote :) I see an exception in your interpretation too. You say "you do not threaten if you cannot make an AoO" but then you say "you still threaten when you run out of AoO". Without adding some "not in the rules deduction" you cannot support in anyway your interpretation. This not make it wrong, but surely not so RAW as you would like. I will surely accept more an interpretation that don't let you threaten if you cannot make AoO, aslo if run out of them, than an interpretation that need a "adding rule" or "arbitrary deduction" like your actual one. Still wrong for me, but more by the RAW than now Understood... I'm not feel as adding a rule, too... but seeing you add some... :) I think is a stall situation :) EDIT: small note on 1/4-9/10 cover: if I have only 10% of my body exposed, is rather simply for me make a movemento to subtract myself from attacks :)
Marcus Majarra 06-11-07, 12:50 PM	Oh-ho. We have a good point. So you're saying that you cannot know if you're in your turn? And you're saying that if you can see a cover you don't know that your enemy cannot make AoOs? Wow. There's a lot that you don't know, when you're in combat. Come on, try again. What you stated here makes absolutely no sense. I never mentioned that you don't know if you're in your turn. What I said was that your opponent doesn't know when of if you're going to attack. As long as you're capable of reaching him, you're a threat to him. And please do without the sarcasm. Marcus, you should know that the PHB explicitely contradicts you. You should know that this contradiction doesn't exist (and if it does, you're more than welcome to quote it). You should also know that every reference to threatening defers to threatening squares with your weapon. If a spellcaster uses all of his spells, can he cast spells? This is where your argument fails. By extension of this kind of thinking, you'd be arguing that any spellcaster with a prestige class with a spell level casting requirement loses all prestige class abilities if he uses up all spell slots of the given level. This makes no sense. Not being able to do a certain action at any given point doesn't imply that you're incapable of performing the action as a whole. A character who used up all his attacks of opportunity for a given turn still threatens the area around him when it's not his turn, despite being unable to attack. But you can't read in this way. If it's not your turn, you can't actually do regular attacks. Your only option is to make AoO. This isn't true. While core rules offer very little in this field, the snake's swiftness spell from the Spell Compendium allows a character to attack immediately. This attack does not count as an attack of opportunity either. The sentence here merely extends your ability to threaten squares as you would during your turn, when it's not actually your turn. I mean: let's go with an example. Fig vs Mage. War get his round, and move near to mage, making his attack. But the Fighter get a wrong tactic: in this position the mage as cover from Fighter. Now is the Mage's turn. The Fighter has at least one AoO. Now, you say that the mage is threatened. But the mage can cast a spell without making any concentration check, and without worrying about any AoO. How can the Fighter his supposed to threaten, if he actually can't threaten? He can and will threaten as normal. Imagine the same scenario, except that a rogue friendly to the fighter is on the opposite side of the mage. While the mage has little to fear in terms of AoOs from the fighter, it is not so for the rogue, who not only threatens the mage, but also flanks him (by virtue of having the fighter threaten from the opposing side); hello sneak attack! More to come later.
Egres 06-11-07, 01:05 PM	Leilond, you can't support your position with a FAQ, when you are the first to admit that the FAQ are full of mistakes. Besides that, talking about rules, if you use the Total Defense action you don't threaten. This shows that you don't threaten if you can't make attacks. This proves you wrong.
Merestil Haye 06-11-07, 01:47 PM	Besides that, talking about rules, if you use the Total Defense action you don't threaten.Where does it say that?You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.Answer : It does not say "you don't threaten", it says "you can't make AoOs." Those two statements are not equivalent. You can threaten without being able to take AoOs.
Marcus Majarra 06-11-07, 04:51 PM	But you can't read in this way. If it's not your turn, you can't actually do regular attacks. Your only option is to make AoO. Actually, I found an example using core rules: Cleave. Barring debates as to whether or not cleaving off an AoO is abusive or not, it remains legitimate. The cleave attempt is not an attack of opportunity, and yet takes place outside your turn. In fact, in your turn, you threaten the mage. I only think that an obstacle like a cover, prevent you from being efficient in your attack. So you can't hit so swiftly (an AoO is much like a free o swift action rather than a move or standard action, in time of execution terms) avoiding obstacles (you know, I'm feel pretty unthreatened if my cover is 9/10, don't you think?). Except that ruling that you cannot attack because you cannot make AoOs is the generalization of an otherwise unrelated issue. Extending this kind of logic means you no longer threaten anything outside your turn the moment you run out of AoOs. In any case, this conclusion is invalid. I can prove this with Cleave. Let's say that, as an AoO, you finish off an opponent within reach. Cleave gives you a free attack against any other opponent within reach. Since this attack is not an AoO, you can effectively land it against the covered mage at no additional penalty (beyond the one for cover). If you weren't threatening the mage, then you would be unable to attack him. Keep in mind that there's a difference between the two following statements: 1) You cannot make an attack against a creature in a given square. 2) You cannot make an attack of opportunity against a creature in a given square. Threat is based on #1, not #2. So I think that the AoO represent something that you can do as "blinded strike", or somewhat similar... You're seing the mage casting, so you try a hit on the fly, hoping to strike. But if he have cover, this is a sort of obstacle. Actually, I think this reasoning might be wrong. Provoking an AoO is the result of exposing yourself by taking a risky action. If having cover means you do not provoke AoOs, it's far easier to argue that what would otherwise be exposed is now safely hidden behind cover. The AoO is not a blinded strike. It's a strike of opportunity, and cover foils the opportunity, not the strike. Without an opportunity, you cannot make a strike of opportunity. Nothing is keeping you from striking period.
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 06:32 PM	Actually, I found an example using core rules: Cleave. Barring debates as to whether or not cleaving off an AoO is abusive or not, it remains legitimate. The cleave attempt is not an attack of opportunity, and yet takes place outside your turn. Yeah. But this is an exception. Is a feat that allow you something that normally you can't do. And btw: cleave need you to attack first. So the only way in a 1-o-1 encounter to cleave, is actually doing aoo. Except that ruling that you cannot attack because you cannot make AoOs is the generalization of an otherwise unrelated issue. But an AoO is a normal attack. So, if you cannot attack at all, nor aoo or regular attack, you cannot make attack. But if you can do aoo, you can attack... Does it sounds reasonabily? Extending this kind of logic means you no longer threaten anything outside your turn the moment you run out of AoOs. Never said that. Quoting Egres, a spellcaster that runs out of spells, still can cast spells. In any case, this conclusion is invalid. I can prove this with Cleave. Let's say that, as an AoO, you finish off an opponent within reach. Cleave gives you a free attack against any other opponent within reach. Since this attack is not an AoO, you can effectively land it against the covered mage at no additional penalty (beyond the one for cover). If you weren't threatening the mage, then you would be unable to attack him. Yay, but the cleave attack, as per Snake's Swiftness spell, allow you to do something that normally you can't do. Take cleave: normally you can't do a second attack at same bab if you drop down an enemy. Or take SS spell: you normally can't make attacks out of your turn. Keep in mind that there's a difference between the two following statements: 1) You cannot make an attack against a creature in a given square. 2) You cannot make an attack of opportunity against a creature in a given square. Threat is based on #1, not #2. So you're saying tha an aoo is not actually an attack? Actually, I think this reasoning might be wrong. Provoking an AoO is the result of exposing yourself by taking a risky action. If having cover means you do not provoke AoOs, it's far easier to argue that what would otherwise be exposed is now safely hidden behind cover. Excuse, but I don't get the point of this statement. The AoO is not a blinded strike. It's a strike of opportunity, and cover foils the opportunity, not the strike. Without an opportunity, you cannot make a strike of opportunity. Nothing is keeping you from striking period. Wait. Please, read my previous post, in wich I'm explain what I mean (i.e. a 120 ft runnig carachter passing through only one of your threatened square i really fast. Mathematically speaking, not even an hasted 10th level dervish can make an attack in 0.25 secs.)
thondar 06-11-07, 06:40 PM	I repeat: Threatening a square is a prerequisite for making any AoO Can you make a trip attack (or other special attack) as an attack of opportunity? Yes, as long as you make the trip attack (or other special attack) with a weapon with which you threaten the target. For example, unless you wield a weapon that allows you to make a trip attack, trip attacks are unarmed attacks; a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. no threat? no AoO! Actually, citing a FAQ when this thread is based upon a wrong FAQ is not a good idea, you know. Two faq! Want more? ;)
Marcus Majarra 06-11-07, 07:23 PM	Yeah. But this is an exception. Is a feat that allow you something that normally you can't do. And btw: cleave need you to attack first. So the only way in a 1-o-1 encounter to cleave, is actually doing aoo. Not quite. You can cleave off the attack you would receive from a snake's swiftness spell. But an AoO is a normal attack. So, if you cannot attack at all, nor aoo or regular attack, you cannot make attack. But if you can do aoo, you can attack... Does it sounds reasonabily? This sounds reasonable. What doesn't sound reasonable is stating that if you can't make AoOs, you can't attack. Never said that. Quoting Egres, a spellcaster that runs out of spells, still can cast spells. Just like a warrior who runs out of attacks can still make attacks. This is the very reason threat and circumstance have nothing to do with one another. Even if you find yourself without the opportunity of actually performing an attack into a given square, you are still able to make an attack into that given square as long as you're armed and within reach. This is what threat is about. Yay, but the cleave attack, as per Snake's Swiftness spell, allow you to do something that normally you can't do. Take cleave: normally you can't do a second attack at same bab if you drop down an enemy. Or take SS spell: you normally can't make attacks out of your turn. What's your point? Combat Reflexes allows you to make more AoOs than normal. Taking levels in a spellcasting class allows you to cast spells. What's defined as "normal" is purely subjective, and has nothing to do with the rules. So you're saying tha an aoo is not actually an attack? You're not reading what I'm writing. Threatening an opponent doesn't depend on your ability to make AoOs against that opponent. It's the other way around. Making AoOs against an opponent depends on your ability to threaten said opponent. AoOs shouldn't even be an issue when determining which squares you can threaten. As long as the weapon you're wielding grants you sufficient reach to attack a square, you threaten that square. Excuse, but I don't get the point of this statement. I was merely giving my opinion as to what an AoO represents. Your example indicated that the AoO was more of a "blinded strike" and that the attacker hoped to hit. As it is, AoOs are as accurate as the attacker's most accurate attack, which means the attack is hardly "blinded." Even if the action that provokes the attack is happening quickly, it's not quick enough to prevent your action from unnecessarily exposing you to further threat. Cover checks in nicely here, since it's suggested you're using that cover to hide your otherwise exposed vulnerable points. Wait. Please, read my previous post, in wich I'm explain what I mean (i.e. a 120 ft runnig carachter passing through only one of your threatened square i really fast. Mathematically speaking, not even an hasted 10th level dervish can make an attack in 0.25 secs.) This is based under the assumption that you can assert how long it takes to make an attack. Or that the character making the AoO didn't see the character running at him in time to have his weapon ready to strike. If you want to play mathematics into this, you should consider that the 10th-level hasted dervish could be fighting with two weapons. And he's moving 5 feet between each attack. Assuming he has sufficient movement and that moving 5 feet and attacking take just as long, he's making 29 or 30 steps when using One Thousand Cuts. If this is evenly divided within 6 seconds, each of his movements and attacks would take 0.20-0.21 seconds to accomplish. If you want even more crazy stunts you can do within the small time frame of a single round, consider an 18th-level monk with the Run feat using the Run action. He'd be moving 450 feet in one round, covering 5 feet in 0.13 seconds on average.
Blackstorm_SK 06-11-07, 08:21 PM	Not quite. You can cleave off the attack you would receive from a snake's swiftness spell. Obviously. But SS alter the normal course of action, 'cause it's aspell. Yes, it still remains another way to cleave. And if you cant make AoOs, it's the only way... Yet I've miss it :) This sounds reasonable. What doesn't sound reasonable is stating that if you can't make AoOs, you can't attack. watch out: I'm state it if you're not in your turn. Unless you get a snake's swiftness spell, you've no way to effectively attack if something deny your AoO. Clearly, if it's your turn, you still can make a regular attack, so you threat. Just like a warrior who runs out of attacks can still make attacks. This is the very reason threat and circumstance have nothing to do with one another. Even if you find yourself without the opportunity of actually performing an attack into a given square, you are still able to make an attack into that given square as long as you're armed and within reach. This is what threat is about. Yes. It's what I think. But find yourself without opportunity of making AoO, don't prevent you from make it. You still can make AoO. But it is not your turn, and the status of "not in your turn" prevet you from making regular attacks. So I'saying that if it's not your turn, you threat because you can make AoOs. Get the point? The rules state that out of your turn you can't make regulare attacks. It's a ststus that prevet you from attack with you standrd/full round action. but don't prevent you from making AoOs. What's your point? Combat Reflexes allows you to make more AoOs than normal. Taking levels in a spellcasting class allows you to cast spells. What's defined as "normal" is purely subjective, and has nothing to do with the rules. Uhm. I'm not sure. What's normal is stated in feats description, after the word Normal. Regarding spellcasters... hey, it's a class. If a pc/npc don't take a spellcaster class, he normally can't cast, yup? :) You're not reading what I'm writing. Threatening an opponent doesn't depend on your ability to make AoOs against that opponent. It's the other way around. Making AoOs against an opponent depends on your ability to threaten said opponent. AoOs shouldn't even be an issue when determining which squares you can threaten. As long as the weapon you're wielding grants you sufficient reach to attack a square, you threaten that square. And where exactly the rules states that you must threaten to make an attack? I remember you that an AoO is an attack. So, or you must threaten to make an attack, or not. Any kind of attack: regular ones and opportunity ones. I was merely giving my opinion as to what an AoO represents. Your example indicated that the AoO was more of a "blinded strike" and that the attacker hoped to hit. As it is, AoOs are as accurate as the attacker's most accurate attack, which means the attack is hardly "blinded." Even if the action that provokes the attack is happening quickly, it's not quick enough to prevent your action from unnecessarily exposing you to further threat. Cover checks in nicely here, since it's suggested you're using that cover to hide your otherwise exposed vulnerable points. Yay. It was only to explain what I'd mean when I was speaking of "blinded strike": a particular event that triger an attck on the fly... Nothing else. It was only to say that's a very quick event. This is based under the assumption that you can assert how long it takes to make an attack. Or that the character making the AoO didn't see the character running at him in time to have his weapon ready to strike. If you want to play mathematics into this, you should consider that the 10th-level hasted dervish could be fighting with two weapons. And he's moving 5 feet between each attack. Assuming he has sufficient movement and that moving 5 feet and attacking take just as long, he's making 29 or 30 steps when using One Thousand Cuts. If this is evenly divided within 6 seconds, each of his movements and attacks would take 0.20-0.21 seconds to accomplish. If you want even more crazy stunts you can do within the small time frame of a single round, consider an 18th-level monk with the Run feat using the Run action. He'd be moving 450 feet in one round, covering 5 feet in 0.13 seconds on average. hey, don't anger... Just an example, as I explain up. :) Still I've forgot the 5 ft step of the dervish (but I'm little dazed: 29-30 step means 29-30 attacks. but a straight dervish can make, with all TWF feats 20 attacks per round, 21 /w haste...), but I haven't forgotten the run-running monk... :) As I've said, just an example to show the short time of an AoO... I can even mathematically find some situation in winch even a not haste greatsworded fighter can make at least 1 attack... :) Originally Posted by faq pg 62 Can you make a trip attack (or other special attack) as an attack of opportunity? Yes, as long as you make the trip attack (or other special attack) with a weapon with which you threaten the target. For example, unless you wield a weapon that allows you to make a trip attack, trip attacks are unarmed attacks; a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. So this should demonstrate what? The rules clearly state that an unarmed charachter without improved unarmed strike/natural weapon don't threat. What should this faq show? You've maliciously forget to bold the right part. It's different say: 1)a character who doesn’t threaten couldn’t make an attack of opportunity. And say: 2)a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. It seems slightly different mean, yeah? I've saw a lot of people that maliciously "forgo" one or two words to change a mean. You know, there's some difference betwen "eating like a pig" and "eating a pig".
weasel0 06-11-07, 11:58 PM	2)a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter where you bold it. If you can't threaten you can't attack. If at anytime you could attack, you threaten. The "could" at this point means that without out of game knowledge, one enemy must assume that at any second, his opponent will attack. You know, and I know that this fighter has one AoO he has already used it. The enemy has no idea when the fighter's "turn" is, how many "AoOs" he has, or anything else. The enemy must assume that the fighter "could" attack at any point the fighter can reach. That is what "threatening" is. RL- just because you see the fence between you and the dog doesn't mean you don't jump when it makes a sudden jump at you and barks. Even here, the dog (by D&D terms) does not threaten you and you know it, but you still jump. How much more threatening is it for an enemy to walk past, stand up, pick up an item, etc. etc. with no fence between the him and the fighter? That's threatened.
Egres 06-12-07, 03:08 AM	It only sounds illogical because you're arbitrarily looking at only a part of the sentence. It's not about being able to attack; it's about being able to make an attack into a given square, which is governed by reach. Circumstances that might prevent you from acting are irrelevant to reach. Marcus, you should know that the PHB explicitely contradicts you.You should know that this contradiction doesn't exist (and if it does, you're more than welcome to quote it). Marcus, I wasn't trying to be mean. I didn't quote it because I was at work, and the bit isn't in the SRD. http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stunneddontflankop6.jpg This is where your argument fails. By extension of this kind of thinking, you'd be arguing that any spellcaster with a prestige class with a spell level casting requirement loses all prestige class abilities if he uses up all spell slots of the given level. This makes no sense. Not being able to do a certain action at any given point doesn't imply that you're incapable of performing the action as a whole. A character who used up all his attacks of opportunity for a given turn still threatens the area around him when it's not his turn, despite being unable to attack. Actually, we do agree on this point.;) This isn't true. While core rules offer very little in this field, the snake's swiftness spell from the Spell Compendium allows a character to attack immediately. This attack does not count as an attack of opportunity either. The sentence here merely extends your ability to threaten squares as you would during your turn, when it's not actually your turn. Right. SSwiftness extends your ability to threaten when you, otherwise, wouldn't be able to. Where does it say that? Quote: Originally Posted by SRD You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense. Answer : It does not say "you don't threaten", it says "you can't make AoOs." Those two statements are not equivalent. You can threaten without being able to take AoOs. I have already cited the passage, Merestyl. Active Shield Defense Your expert use of your shield allows you to strike at vulnerable foes even when you forgo your own attacks in favor of defense. Prerequisite: Proficiency with shields, Shield Specialization. Benefit: When fighting defensively and using a shield, you do not take the standard fighting defensively penalties on attacks of opportunity. When using the total defense action and a shield, you still threaten the area around you as normal. You can make attacks of opportunity with a -4 penalty. Special: A fighter can select Active Shield Defense as one of his fighter bonus feats. Normal: You take a -4 penalty on all attacks while fighting defensively. You cannot attack while using the total defense action. This shows that if you are incapale of making attacks you don't threaten, no matter if the book explicitely tells you out so or not. Hope this helps.
thondar 06-12-07, 09:50 AM	This shows that if you are incapale of making attacks you don't threaten, no matter if the book explicitely tells you out so or not. No! You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. [..] You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 09:56 AM	It doesn't matter where you bold it. If you can't threaten you can't attack. If at anytime you could attack, you threaten. What do you exactly mean with "anytime"? If I'm stunned out of my turn, and then the stunning is removed, I can attack in my turn, so I must suppose that when I'm stunned i threaten, caus at "anytime" I could attack? Oh, and btw, a whip allow you to attack even if you don't threaten. So I think that does matter where I bold. The "could" at this point means that without out of game knowledge, one enemy must assume that at any second, his opponent will attack. You know, and I know that this fighter has one AoO he has already used it. The enemy has no idea when the fighter's "turn" is, how many "AoOs" he has, or anything else. The enemy must assume that the fighter "could" attack at any point the fighter can reach. That is what "threatening" is. So a stunned charachter threaten, cause you don't know if his stunning end or not while you act? RL- just because you see the fence between you and the dog doesn't mean you don't jump when it makes a sudden jump at you and barks. Wrong way. I jump if I'm unaware of the dog. If I'm aware of it's presence I don't jump. However, I know people that don't jump even if they are unawared, and even people that jumpa if they're aware of the dog. So, this isn't RLing. This is a situation that different people handle in different ways. Is subjective. Even here, the dog (by D&D terms) does not threaten you and you know it, but you still jump. As I said, not for all people. generally, I can assume that this happen when you're unaware, i.e. the surprise round, in wich I'm considered flat-footed. How much more threatening is it for an enemy to walk past, stand up, pick up an item, etc. etc. with no fence between the him and the fighter? That's threatened. You can't give up game mechanics to sustain your position and claim you're RLing.
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 09:58 AM	No! Thondar, it seems to me I've yet explained the faqs you've quoted. Don't say only no. Give me something that justify your no.
Egres 06-12-07, 10:14 AM	No! As said before, the FAQ are wrong when they contradict the rules.
thondar 06-12-07, 10:55 AM	Oh, and btw, a whip allow you to attack even if you don't threaten. Allow you to make a AoO? Why? Thanks Black!
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 11:17 AM	Allow you to make a AoO? Why? Thanks Black! The whip has special rules. Read it. Is an exception in many ways.
Marcus Majarra 06-12-07, 01:12 PM	And where exactly the rules states that you must threaten to make an attack? I remember you that an AoO is an attack. So, or you must threaten to make an attack, or not. Any kind of attack: regular ones and opportunity ones. It's under threatened squares. Threatening and being able to make an attack into a given square are interdependent: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" If you can make a melee attack into a given square, you're threatening that square. If you're threatening a square, by definition you can make a melee attack into it*. This is the "normal" state of the rules. You're right in stating that you need to threaten a square in order to make any sort of attack into it, including an attack of opportunity. However, you should keep in mind that it's not because something keeps you from making an attack of opportunity doesn't necessarily keep you from attacking. My point here is that you shouldn't generalize rules specific to AoOs. Not being able to make an AoO doesn't necessarily imply that you don't threaten a square. hey, don't anger... Just an example, as I explain up. Still I've forgot the 5 ft step of the dervish (but I'm little dazed: 29-30 step means 29-30 attacks. but a straight dervish can make, with all TWF feats 20 attacks per round, 21 /w haste...), but I haven't forgotten the run-running monk... As I've said, just an example to show the short time of an AoO... I can even mathematically find some situation in winch even a not haste greatsworded fighter can make at least 1 attack... By steps, I was including both attacks and movement. And I agree that actions can happen extremely quickly in a single round. Marcus, I wasn't trying to be mean. I didn't quote it because I was at work, and the bit isn't in the SRD. http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntflankop6.jpg Point taken and conceded. The safest way to generalize the rule here is that anything that actively prevents you from attacking as a whole (making an attack) prevents you from threatening. Otherwisem running out of AoOs means you don't threaten any more. Or that being unable to make an AoO against a given target prevents you from threatening said target. SSwiftness extends your ability to threaten when you, otherwise, wouldn't be able to. Here we disagree. You still threaten your opponent, even when you've run out of attacks. Lack of opportunity doesn't equate to lack of ability. As said before, the FAQ are wrong when they contradict the rules. Except the FAQ isn't contradictory. Nothing in the rules indicates that you no longer threaten any squares while using total defense. The contradiction lies in the PHB2. Now, we could all start arguing about whom is more wrong than whom, but I see this as a pointless endeavour, as rule supplements do include a fair number of errors. The Complete Warrior's Kensai, for example, indicates that he has to imbue each fist separately, when core rules stipulate that the unarmed strike has nothing to do with specific body parts. In any case, errata rules indicate that the PHB has priority in combat rules, so the PHB is the safest source here.
thondar 06-12-07, 01:24 PM	The whip has special rules. Read it. Is an exception in many ways. You name it! It’s an exception in many ways but for make AoO isn’t indicated exception. No threat => no AoO As per faq (no bold): a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. No threat => No AoO! Thondar, it seems to me I've yet explained the faqs you've quoted. Don't say only no. Give me something that justify your no. ok! You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of opportunity (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook), the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath. All?? It isn’t all! Anyway.. To use the shield for cover you give up all your attacks You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath => you can attack? No => you can threat? Yes, all around => you can make AoO all around? No Easy! As said before, the FAQ are wrong when they contradict the rules. This faqs don’t contradict any rule Instead your interpretation contradict the faqs Ahh I forgot… Does a spiritual weapon get to make attacks of opportunity? Actually, since the spell indicates specifically that spiritual weapon strikes as a spell, and not a weapon, it is not allowed an attack of opportunity when normally provoked. Likewise, the technical definition of an attack of opportunity requires that you threaten the opponent in question (see PHB page 137). While you do direct the spiritual weapon to attack, you are not technically wielding the weapon, and so you do not threaten the square into which it is attacking. No threat => No AoO! Want more?
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 03:36 PM	It's under threatened squares. Threatening and being able to make an attack into a given square are interdependent: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" If you can make a melee attack into a given square, you're threatening that square. If you're threatening a square, by definition you can make a melee attack into it*. This is the "normal" state of the rules. You're right in stating that you need to threaten a square in order to make any sort of attack into it, including an attack of opportunity. However, you should keep in mind that it's not because something keeps you from making an attack of opportunity doesn't necessarily keep you from attacking. My point here is that you shouldn't generalize rules specific to AoOs. Not being able to make an AoO doesn't necessarily imply that you don't threaten a square. Yup... Sorry, I'm not so able with english to clearly explain my thought w/o misunderstanding.... what I'm saying is that if something prevent you from making AoOs and reg attacks, you cannot threat. And I think that the "out of your turn" status prevent you from making reg attacks... It can't be irrelevant, otherwise nothing may prevent me from, let's say, drink a potion out of my turn. By steps, I was including both attacks and movement. And I agree that actions can happen extremely quickly in a single round. Get it... agree :) Point taken and conceded. The safest way to generalize the rule here is that anything that actively prevents you from attacking as a whole (making an attack) prevents you from threatening. Otherwisem running out of AoOs means you don't threaten any more. Or that being unable to make an AoO against a given target prevents you from threatening said target. Wait, Egres and I never said that if you runs out of AoO you don't threaten. But if something prevent you from AoOs and you're not in your turn, you have no way to attack (unless you get a SSwiftness spell or similar), so you don't threat. Otherwise if I cast a spell in such situation I should make a concentration check... that's useless... Here we disagree. You still threaten your opponent, even when you've run out of attacks. Lack of opportunity doesn't equate to lack of ability. Yay. Agree. Is not matter of running out of attacks. It matter of couldn't making attack because something prevent you to do it. Except the FAQ isn't contradictory. Nothing in the rules indicates that you no longer threaten any squares while using total defense. The contradiction lies in the PHB2. Now, we could all start arguing about whom is more wrong than whom, but I see this as a pointless endeavour, as rule supplements do include a fair number of errors. The Complete Warrior's Kensai, for example, indicates that he has to imbue each fist separately, when core rules stipulate that the unarmed strike has nothing to do with specific body parts. In any case, errata rules indicate that the PHB has priority in combat rules, so the PHB is the safest source here. Yap. But I'm expected at least an errata on the phb2, if it was wrong. I didn't see any errata, to this day. You name it! It’s an exception in many ways but for make AoO isn’t indicated exception. No threat => no AoO As per faq (no bold): No threat => No AoO! So? I've told yet that the whip has special rule. You can't make AoOs because since you threaten anyway, nobody can provoke an AoO. All?? It isn’t all! Anyway.. All that I need. Relax. To use the shield for cover you give up all your attacks You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath => you can attack? No => you can threat? Yes, all around => you can make AoO all around? No Easy! And please, can you bold exactly where it says all around? Btw, this make falling even your theory. Since you've stated that if you can attack in your turn you threat. Here it says a different thing. Easy. This faqs don’t contradict any rule Instead your interpretation contradict the faq It not seems to me. Ahh I forgot… No threat => No AoO! Want more? Little logic lesson: your implication is the counternominal of aoo -> threat. Just a little note: in threatened square def, it don't speak of aoos, but of attack in general. So it refere to reg attack and aoos. So if your interpretation is the right one, it must be right even for reg attack. If you destroy my thesis, you destroy your thesis as well. Btw, no aoo is a necessary (or needed, I'm not sure of how it spelled in english) condition for not have threat. Counterwise, threat is a necessary(needed) condition to make AoO. now you have two choice: the two things are interdependent, so they must be evaluated in the same condition, or they are not dependent, so it's not matter if you can or cannot make attack to threat. Choose wisely. And, yeah, I want more.
Kouk 06-12-07, 04:51 PM	Hehe, don't hold your breath on errata. The last time they updated any was the MM3 on June 29th of last year. They have not made errata for ANY book since then, and the MM3 was published in 2004.
thondar 06-12-07, 06:05 PM	what I'm saying is that if something prevent you from making AoOs and reg attacks, you cannot threat. And I think that the "out of your turn" status prevent you from making reg attacks... It can't be irrelevant, otherwise nothing may prevent me from, let's say, drink a potion out of my turn. We’re speaking of threat no drinking. The rules make an exception just for threat. But I'm expected at least an errata on the phb2, if it was wrong. PHBII set straight total defense. No more. Using total defense (without feat) you don’t threat. Why? Because PHBII say it. It’s a declared exception. I've told yet that the whip has special rule. yes.. but has only the special rules declared. You can’t add special rules for your pleasure. For make AoO isn’t indicated exception => no special rules. You can't make AoOs because since you threaten anyway, nobody can provoke an AoO. So threaten’s a prerequisite for AoO. I agree. But SRD don’t say that. It just say: you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. I can make an attack? Yes I threaten? No I can make an AoO? No Then I can attack but I can’t make an AoO => your AoO definition is wrong. All?? It isn’t all! Anyway.. All that I need. Relax. You say relax??? How can I relax when you said: Read the underlined passage that you maliciously "forget" to quote. :mad: To use the shield for cover you give up all your attacks You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover you can threat? Yes, all around And please, can you bold exactly where it says all around? Can you bold where it don’t says all around? All's taken for granted. Of course. And you can attack? No you can threat somewhere? Yes Then I can’t attack but I threat => your AoO definition is wrong. Btw, this make falling even your theory. Since you've stated that if you can attack in your turn you threat. If you can theoretically attack in your turn you threat. Little logic lesson: your implication is the counternominal of aoo -> threat. counternominal? No. you can’t apply logic here. It’s just a definition: the technical definition of an attack of opportunity requires that you threaten the opponent in question It’s clear. And, yeah, I want more. ok! :) Is a warforged considered to be wearing gauntlets, and therefore always armed? A warforged always threatens squares within its reach, but not because it’s considered to be wearing gauntlets. A warforged has a natural slam attack, and thus always threatens squares within its reach. It speak about reach and armed attack because AoO don’t make difference. Is a character wielding a two-handed reach weapon (such as a longspear) and wearing spiked armor threatening all squares within 10 feet? Assuming he has Combat Reflexes, can he make an attack of opportunity with his longspear and then with his armor spikes in the same round? A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away. Idem Enough?
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 06:07 PM	Hehe, don't hold your breath on errata. The last time they updated any was the MM3 on June 29th of last year. They have not made errata for ANY book since then, and the MM3 was published in 2004. Bad guys :( I've checked it... Last official errata seems to be released in feb 2006... Not 2004, yeah, but still a long time ago. And the Sage don't reply. Thanks, Wizards "We have a plan" of the coast. ----------------------- Sorry for ot. Get back on tonpic :)
Marcus Majarra 06-12-07, 07:09 PM	But if something prevent you from AoOs and you're not in your turn, you have no way to attack (unless you get a SSwiftness spell or similar), so you don't threat. This is the part of the argument I find wrong. You're assuming that the standard reference for attacking out-of-turn is to make an AoO. As it is, there is no standard reference for attacking out-of-turn. An AoO is an example thereof, but it should not otherwise be used as a general rule, since AoOs are merely types of attacks. You can't extends the rules from AoOs to threatening squares. It works the other way around: the rules for threatening squares extend to AoOs.
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 07:29 PM	This is the part of the argument I find wrong. You're assuming that the standard reference for attacking out-of-turn is to make an AoO. As it is, there is no standard reference for attacking out-of-turn. An AoO is an example thereof, but it should not otherwise be used as a general rule, since AoOs are merely types of attacks. You can't extends the rules from AoOs to threatening squares. It works the other way around: the rules for threatening squares extend to AoOs. Uhm. It still somewhat confusing me. I mean: if the AoO is a types of attack, I assume that if I can make regular attack or AoO, I threaten a square. I can do it, exactly 'cause AoO is a type of attack, but it still an attack. Now, let's take a look: in my turn I can't make AoO, since there's no opponent that can provoke it. First check fail. But I can still make reg attacks, yes? Yes. Second check ok. So I threaten. When I'm not in my turn, I check the same two things: can I make reg attacks? Nope. First check fail (don't talk of SSwiftness, I know it allow you a reg attack, but "normally" you can't make reg attacks). Can I make AoO? Yes, if something don't prevent me to do (i.e. cover, flat-footed, nauseated, and so on). Second check ok. So I threat. This is my check when I'm search for threatened squares. And I check this way because the rules state that i threaten all squares into which I can make a melee attack. Not only reg attacks, but a generical melee attack. And AoO is a melee attack. Regardin for threaten extended to AoO, the thing is a bit complex. Follow me: as I said up here, i threaten all squares into which I can make a melee attack. It is true for all melee attack. So, there are interconnected: I can attack where I threat, and I threat where I can attack. If I'm looping, I'm looping for AoOs as for reg attacks. If I'm not looping, I'm not looping for reg attacks as for AoOs.
Blackstorm_SK 06-12-07, 08:14 PM	We’re speaking of threat no drinking. The rules make an exception just for threat. Oh. I must've missed. Can you quote where srd state that I can't do the same assumption you make for threat? PHBII set straight total defense. No more. Using total defense (without feat) you don’t threat. Why? Because PHBII say it. It’s a declared exception. I still remember that strange word near the end of ASD description: Normal... what that means? I'm not sure... yes.. but has only the special rules declared. You can’t add special rules for your pleasure. For make AoO isn’t indicated exception => no special rules. Where I've added special rules? I've said that nobody can provoke an AoO since it state that you don't threat. And, btw, if anAoO is an attack, the special rules that applies on attacks, apllies to AoO, too. So threaten’s a prerequisite for AoO. I agree. But SRD don’t say that. Hey, decide. SRD say that or don't say that. Be clear :) It just say: I can make an attack? Yes I threaten? No I can make an AoO? No Then I can attack but I can’t make an AoO => your AoO definition is wrong. And what about your "I can make a reg attacks so I threaten" definiton? with the whip it falling too. You say relax??? How can I relax when you said: :mad: Hey... I've had the feeling of being fooled. :P Be happy. Maybe you can convince me. I'm taking this topic as clarifying one, after the quasi-flame on the italian board... Can you bold where it don’t says all around? All's taken for granted. Of course. Uhm. I'm not agree. And you can attack? No you can threat somewhere? Yes Then I can’t attack but I threat => your AoO definition is wrong. My AoO definition is: a single melee attack. I don't think it's wrong. Btw, this make falling even your theory. Since you've stated that if you can attack in your turn you threat. If you can theoretically attack in your turn you threat. Theoretically. I can theoretically drink. I can theoretically do anything I can do in my turn. It's not seem a good point. May be we must open a topic on TO board? :P counternominal? No. you can’t apply logic here. It’s just a definition: You start with logic. Anyway, any statement that can be evaluate with a T/F value, and that can be related with another T/F statement throug logical conjunction, is subject to the logic rule. Even if you can prove that seein a purple cow is a proof that all crows are black. :) PS: I've maliciously forget to quote the final part :) This because I've some pending question, not 'cause I don't want to reply. Read u soon. :)
Egres 06-13-07, 03:28 AM	Point taken and conceded. The safest way to generalize the rule here is that anything that actively prevents you from attacking as a whole (making an attack) prevents you from threatening. Otherwisem running out of AoOs means you don't threaten any more. Or that being unable to make an AoO against a given target prevents you from threatening said target. Sure, but not necessarily. If you look at our interpretation you'll see that it's in line with WotC rules: when you can't attack, for any reason, you don't threaten. So, if you are flat footed, and it's not your turn, you don't threaten. (this is what the first FAQ cited in this thread was, in fact, implying, cause generally you are flat footed in the first round of combat) Here we disagree. You still threaten your opponent, even when you've run out of attacks. Lack of opportunity doesn't equate to lack of ability. Nope, we do agree on this point. I stated something different: when you can't attack because attacks are negated (i.e.: flat footed during your opponent turn) you don't threaten. Except the FAQ isn't contradictory. Nothing in the rules indicates that you no longer threaten any squares while using total defense. The contradiction lies in the PHB2. Actually, the rules, in our interpretation do state that if you can't make attacks you dont threaten. So, the FAQ is contradictory, because is making up rules, and the PHB2 is right. And the FAQ can't make up rules, so.... Now, we could all start arguing about whom is more wrong than whom, but I see this as a pointless endeavour, as rule supplements do include a fair number of errors. The Complete Warrior's Kensai, for example, indicates that he has to imbue each fist separately, when core rules stipulate that the unarmed strike has nothing to do with specific body parts. In any case, errata rules indicate that the PHB has priority in combat rules, so the PHB is the safest source here. Sure, but: 1) The FAQ has dozens of errors too; 2) nothing in the PHBII contradicts the PHB: in fact, it simply confirms our position. If I have to choose, I stay with the rules. PHBII set straight total defense. No more. Using total defense (without feat) you don’t threat. Why? Because PHBII say it. It’s a declared exception. Unfortunately for you, it's not an exception at all. In fact, without the PHBII feat you would argue, as you have done, that in Total Defense you do threaten. Besides that, a feat in another book cannot add rules, so it is clear that it's simply confirming what the PHB already states, even if not explicitly. Now, if you are going to call "an exception" everything that doesn't match with your interpretation the debate becomes meaningless. So, concede the point, and admit that the PHBII explicitly contradicts your opinion. So threaten’s a prerequisite for AoO. I agree. We have no prerequisite here. They are two game elements that reciprocally influence each other. If you can theoretically attack in your turn you threat. Don't take things out of thin air. "Theoretically" your turn couldn't even come. Not to mention that negating the fact that there is a big difference between acting in your turn and acting in your opponent turn is a big stretch. Besides that, thondar, can you answer to PenderGrass posts, and to my questions regarding the IUS feat? They are still lacking a reply. You can jump into this thread as you like, but you might want to answer to previous posters too.
thondar 06-13-07, 09:59 AM	the rules state that i threaten all squares into which I can make a melee attack. It means just: you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Glossary confirm this version threatened square A square within an opponent's reach. Generally, characters threaten all adjacent squares, though reach weapons can alter this range. Certain actions provoke attacks of opportunity when taken within a threatened square. I can attack where I threat, and I threat where I can attack. If I'm looping, I'm looping for AoOs as for reg attacks. If I'm not looping, I'm not looping for reg attacks as for AoOs. Yes, you are looping. Because you threaten in your weapon’s reach. We’re speaking of threat no drinking. The rules make an exception just for threat. Oh. I must've missed. Can you quote where srd state that I can't do the same assumption you make for threat? Of course! But you know already: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. You threaten (no drink) even when it is not your action. PHBII set straight total defense. No more. Using total defense (without feat) you don’t threat. Why? Because PHBII say it. It’s a declared exception. I still remember that strange word near the end of ASD description: Normal... what that means? I'm not sure... PHBII straighten (=clarify) total defense. Or PHBII is wrong. I've said that nobody can provoke an AoO since it state that you don't threat. And I agree: threaten’s a prerequisite for AoO. And what about your "I can make a reg attacks so I threaten" definiton? with the whip it falling too. Yes. But the whip has special rules: you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. I can’t attack but I threat => your AoO definition is wrong. My AoO definition is: a single melee attack. I don't think it's wrong. Right. Your threat definition is wrong. If you can theoretically attack in your turn you threat. Theoretically. I can theoretically drink. I can theoretically do anything I can do in my turn. Yes, theoretically you can drink. But for threatening you need attack, no drink. "Theoretically" your turn couldn't even come. No point. Not to mention that negating the fact that there is a big difference between acting in your turn and acting in your opponent turn is a big stretch. No so big: the turns are simultaneous. Besides that, thondar, can you answer to PenderGrass posts, and to my questions regarding the IUS feat? Answer to PenderGrass? Leilond and Kouk made it. I quote. Answer to IUS question? ok: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. You are considered armed so you threat If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. It say you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents because it’s the main thing. Btw the second quote say: no threat? => no AoO and it isn’t a faq.
Blackstorm_SK 06-13-07, 10:41 AM	It means just: you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Glossary confirm this version Yeah. So it doesn't matter if you can or cannot make attacks, reg or opportunity ones, yup? It count only the wepon's reach? Yes, you are looping. Because you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Oh. So you're saying tha if I threaten I can make attacks? Of course! But you know already: You threaten (no drink) even when it is not your action. It's not what I asked you. I'll try again: can you bold the point in which the SRD states that even if I theoretically drink a potion, I can't do? PHBII straighten (=clarify) total defense. Or PHBII is wrong. Agree on first statement. So you don't threaten in total defense. Question closed. Yes. But the whip has special rules: So the whip has special requisite for your thesis but no for mine? Farly enough. Right. Your threat definition is wrong. My threat definition is: you threaten al sqaures into wich you can make an attack, even when is not your atcion. I don't think it's wrong. Yes, theoretically you can drink. But for threatening you need attack, no drink. And for drinking I need a potion, no attack. Originally Posted by Egres "Theoretically" your turn couldn't even come. No point. Not to mention that negating the fact that there is a big difference between acting in your turn and acting in your opponent turn is a big stretch. No so big: the turns are simultaneous. Funny: first you claim a no point for the "theoretically your turn couldn't even come", then you claim that the turns are simultaneous, that is a theoretically right statement. In the practice, however, they're not simultaneous. Answer to PenderGrass? Leilond and Kouk made it. I quote. Big deal :) Answer to IUS question? ok: You are considered armed so you threat It say you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents because it’s the main thing. Clear. Btw the second quote say: no threat? => no AoO and it isn’t a faq. And the relationship betwen those two quote is? It not seems a complete reply.
Marcus Majarra 06-13-07, 01:26 PM	Egres, the rules don't indicate that you cannot attack while using Total Defense. The rules indicate that you can make no attacks of opportunity while using Total Defense. And while an attack of opportunity is an attack, an attack is not necessarily an attack of opportunity. While rules applying to attacks do apply to attacks of opportunity, rules applying to attacks of opportunity do not apply to other attacks unless otherwise stated. The PHB2 is contradictory in that it claims that, normally, a character using Total Defense cannot attack, whereas nothing in the core rules state otherwise. If you look at the general benefits of the Active Shield Defense feat, you'll notice that they unequivocably apply to attacks of opportunity: When fighting defensively and using a shield, you do not take the standard fighting defensively penalties on attacks of opportunity. This applies strictly to attacks of opportunity. It has no relevance to any other aspect of combat. When using the total defense action and a shield, you still threaten the area around you as normal. You can make attacks of opportunity with a -4 penalty. Nothing in these sentences suggests that you normally don't threaten the area around you while using the total defense action and a shield. If anything, it only clarifies that you keep doing so. These sentences also provide the added benefit of being able to make AoOs while using Total Defense, something which does not normally occur. The big contradiction is here: Normal: You take a -4 penalty on all attacks while fighting defensively. You cannot attack while using the total defense action. This has no foundation in the rules. Total defense only prevents you from making AoOs.
Egres 06-13-07, 03:08 PM	No point. Can't you do better than that? I hope so. No so big: the turns are simultaneous. Are you sure? If I show you that the turns are not simultaneous, would you admit that you are wrong? Answer to PenderGrass? Leilond and Kouk made it. I quote. Actually, no one replied to PenderGrass's points. Read again. You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. You are considered armed so you threat Actually, ignoring that "that is" shows that you aren't paying attention. "What folows after "that is" is what "armed" means by the rule: itìs explictly spelled out. It say you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents because it’s the main thing. The "main" thing, eh? Maybe because if you can't make AoO during your opponent's turn you don't threeaten, eh? Maybe because we are right, eh? no threat? => no AoO That is not a problem for me, As I said, the are no prerequisites here. They are two game elements that influence each other. Egres, the rules don't indicate that you cannot attack while using Total Defense. The rules indicate that you can make no attacks of opportunity while using Total Defense. And while an attack of opportunity is an attack, an attack is not necessarily an attack of opportunity. While rules applying to attacks do apply to attacks of opportunity, rules applying to attacks of opportunity do not apply to other attacks unless otherwise stated. But if you use TD you use a standard action, giving up all of your attacks. For this reason you don't threaten. And for this reason our position is right. This applies strictly to attacks of opportunity. It has no relevance to any other aspect of combat.[/QUOTE It talks about AoO because they are the only attacks left to you. This shows that if you cannot make AoO, and you are impeded from making normal attacks, you don't threaten. I hope you are not so stubborn, Marcus, to not see our point. [QUOTE] Nothing in these sentences suggests that you normally don't threaten the area around you while using the total defense action and a shield. Actually, if you were right, those sentences would be nonsensical.
crashlogic 06-13-07, 03:20 PM	Ok. I thought I was pretty clear before. threatened squares do not require an actual threat. "Threatened area" is a geographical description. If you were armed, If you were not flatfooted, If you have not used your allotment of AoO's, you would be able to attack in this area. The area does not change simply because you cannot make an attack.
thondar 06-13-07, 05:45 PM	you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Glossary confirm this version So it doesn't matter if you can or cannot make attacks, reg or opportunity ones, yup? It count only the weapon's reach? No. It count condition too. So you're saying tha if I threaten I can make attacks? No. PHB say you threaten in your weapon’s reach. I agree. can you bold the point in which the SRD states that even if I theoretically drink a potion, I can't do? What? I can’t do that? Drink? Threat? So the whip has special requisite for your thesis but no for mine? C’est la vie! Read yourself. "] Using a tower shield for cover I can’t attack but I threat => Your threat definition is wrong My threat definition is: you threaten all squares into wich you can make an attack, even when is not your atcion. I don't think it's wrong. Right again! Your interpretation is wrong. PS: I've maliciously forget to quote the final part This because I've some pending question, not 'cause I don't want to reply. Read u soon. I’m awaiting.. "Theoretically" your turn couldn't even come. No point. you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Glossary confirm this version Not to mention that negating the fact that there is a big difference between acting in your turn and acting in your opponent turn is a big stretch. No so big: the turns are simultaneous. If I show you that the turns are not simultaneous, would you admit that you are wrong? No. but I’m curious. Go ahead Actually, no one replied to PenderGrass's points. I don’t think so. Anyway repeat the question, if you want. You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. Explain your point A monk unarmed threaten? no threat? => no AoO That is not a problem for me, As I said, the are no prerequisites here. Right! Exactly! As you said. Because rules say different. Threat it's a prerequisite for AoO They are two game elements that influence each other. Listen to your friend: Regardin for threaten extended to AoO, the thing is a bit complex. Follow me: as I said up here, i threaten all squares into which I can make a melee attack. It is true for all melee attack. So, there are interconnected: I can attack where I threat, and I threat where I can attack. If I'm looping, I'm looping for AoOs as for reg attacks. If I'm not looping, I'm not looping for reg attacks as for AoOs. Nothing in these sentences suggests that you normally don't threaten the area around you while using the total defense action and a shield. If anything, it only clarifies that you keep doing so. Good point!! Ehi Egres, you fooled me!! I completely fell for it But if you use TD you use a standard action, giving up all of your attacks. For this reason you don't threaten. take cover with a tower shield use a standard action too. But you threaten. You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover In total defense if you don’t threaten (but maybe you threaten) it’s because you are nuzzled behind your little shield.
Kouk 06-13-07, 06:07 PM	Let's all agree to disagree?
Marcus Majarra 06-13-07, 07:14 PM	But if you use TD you use a standard action, giving up all of your attacks. This conclusion has no basis in fact. You do not need to use a standard action in order to attack. This is only the most common form of attack. If you want evidence of this, you can take, for example, quickened spells involving attack rolls, like a quickened vampiric touch. You're clearly making an attack here, using a free action to do so. In any case, I can explain to you why your way of thinking doesn't work within the rules: You claim that your normal course of attacks are attacks during your round, plus any AoOs you might be entitled to. As per the rules, you threaten the are into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your turn. Of course, when it's not your turn, you cannot attack unless someone provokes an attack of opportunity from you. By definition, since you can't attack unless someone provokes, you threaten no squares until someone provokes an attack of opportunity from you. The problem is: in order for someone to provoke an attack of opportunity from you, you need to be threatening the opponent. This inevitably creates a loop that prevents AoOs from occurring at all. The only available justification to your way of thinking is the arbitrary decision that unless otherwise stated, the only way to attack out-of-turn is to make an AoO. If you can find this written somewhere in the rules, I'll gladly concede the entire point. As it is, this is not written. In fact, the very notion of AoOs is introduced AFTER the notion of being able to attack, even when it's not your turn. This is why I can only conclude that unless something actively prevents you from making melee attacks as a whole into certain squares, you still threaten those squares, even when it's not your turn. Running out of attacks does not equate to being actively prevented from attacking. You don't lose the ability to spend money when you run out of it. You just lose the opportunity to do so.
Egres 06-14-07, 02:43 AM	No point. Deja vu. If I show you that the turns are not simultaneous, would you admit that you are wrong? No. but I’m curious. Go ahead So, you even if I show you that turns are not simultaneous you wouldn't admit that you are wrong? That tells me much about your onesty. I don’t think so. Anyway repeat the question, if you want. Read the thread: I'm not your servant. Explain your point A monk unarmed threaten? Read the feat: it tells you what "armed" means. "That is" is cristally clear in English. Because rules say different. Threat it's a prerequisite for AoO Unofortunately the rules also say that if you can't make an attack you don't threaten. Nothing in these sentences suggests that you normally don't threaten the area around you while using the total defense action and a shield. If anything, it only clarifies that you keep doing so. Good point!! Ehi Egres, you fooled me!! I completely fell for it Again?!? If Marcus was right, that sentence would be nonsensical: read it once again. Do you really can't understand it? That wouldn't be worth of you, seriously. If you want I can explain to you, but I'll admit that would be quite embarassing. take cover with a tower shield use a standard action too. But you threaten. Because a FAQ says so? A FAQ also says that if you are flat footed you don't threaten. Have fun with it. This conclusion has no basis in fact. You do not need to use a standard action in order to attack. This is only the most common form of attack. If you want evidence of this, you can take, for example, quickened spells involving attack rolls, like a quickened vampiric touch. You're clearly making an attack here, using a free action to do so. Do you threaten before casting that quickened vampiric touch? Of course, when it's not your turn, you cannot attack unless someone provokes an attack of opportunity from you. By definition, since you can't attack unless someone provokes, you threaten no squares until someone provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Nope. Can you read when you don't have anything to read? As you can see, you are mixing up the two meanings of "can". In fact, if I cannot make AoO in the first place I can't make AoO even if provoked. This shows that I can make AoO before my opponents provoke them. Running out of attacks does not equate to being actively prevented from attacking. As I said before, we do agree on this point.
thondar 06-14-07, 08:37 AM	Not to mention that negating the fact that there is a big difference between acting in your turn and acting in your opponent turn is a big stretch. […] So, you even if I show you that turns are not simultaneous you wouldn't admit that you are wrong? No because you haven’t to act, simply be in position to attack: you threaten in your weapon’s reach. PHB glossary confirm this version. [IUS:] You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. [...] Read the feat: it tells you what "armed" means. Are you saying a monk unarmed don’t threaten? because the feat don't say: you threaten? Rules say: Threat it's a prerequisite for AoO Unfortunately the rules also say that if you can't make an attack you don't threaten. Just in your interpretation! Your interpretation is looping! => your interpretation is wrong. Nothing in these sentences suggests that you normally don't threaten the area around you while using the total defense action and a shield. If anything, it only clarifies that you keep doing so. If Marcus was right, that sentence would be nonsensical: read it once again. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe is flavour test, maybe PHBII is wrong, maybe clarify PHB…. Anyway not's a problem. I already explain that. take cover with a tower shield use a standard action too. But you threaten. Because a FAQ says so? A FAQ also says that if you are flat footed you don't threaten. Just because a faq is wrong you can’t say all faqs are wrong. No sense. I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? Can you make a example where 1 is true and 2 is false? Another faq… Will a reach weapon (or natural reach) allow you to make an attack of opportunity against a foe using the Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack feats against you? Having superior reach allows a creature to threaten more squares, but it doesn’t allow that creature to make attacks of opportunity when it otherwise could not. More reach? => more threat.
Egres 06-14-07, 08:54 AM	No because you haven’t to act, simply be in position to attack: you threaten in your weapon’s reach. PHB glossary confirm this version. So you threaten even if stunned? Are you saying a monk unarmed don’t threaten? because the feat don't say: you threaten? I'm saying what the feat says: that being armed means what the feat syas it means. Read it and try to negate it if you can. Your interpretation is looping! => your interpretation is wrong. A loop would be infinite. We have only an apparent loop here. No AoO, no threatening: end of the apparent loop. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe is flavour test, maybe PHBII is wrong, maybe clarify PHB…. Anyway not's a problem. I already explain that Maybe you didn't do what you say you have done. Try again. I'm still waiting for replies to PenderGrass. Just because a faq is wrong you can’t say all faqs are wrong. No sense. Interesting. When the FAQ agree with you they are right, but if they negate your position they magically become wrong. I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? Can you make a example where 1 is true and 2 is false? The right one is the first. Why should I make an example to compare the two sentences? If you can't make any attack, you don't threaten. More reach? => more threat. Sure, if you can attack. By the way, do you know what really bugs me? This question: does a paralized creature threaten? Can you provide a rule based answer to this question?
thondar 06-14-07, 09:46 AM	I'm saying what the feat says: that being armed means what the feat says it means. Read it and try to negate it if you can negate what? Be clear A loop would be infinite. We have only an apparent loop here. No AoO, no threatening: end of the apparent loop. Out your turn you say: I threat if I can make AoO But rules say too: To make AoO I need threat This loop is infinite. About total defense and active shield defense PHBII set straight total defense. No more. Using total defense (without feat) you don’t threat. Why? Because PHBII say it. It’s a declared exception. Or maybe PHBII is wrong o maybe it don't say you don't threat.. I'm still waiting for replies to PenderGrass. That question was already answered. Anyway repeat the question, if you want answer Just because a faq is wrong you can’t say all faqs are wrong. No sense. When the FAQ agree with you they are right, but if they negate your position they magically become wrong. You say that faq is wrong. I agree. Just 1 faq negate my position and yourself say it’s wrong. Much (7, 8? i lost my count) faq support my position and negate yours. I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? Can you make a example where 1 is true and 2 is false? The right one is the first. Why should I make an example to compare the two sentences? I agree. The right one is the first. But I asked the difference in your interpretation and an example. Don’t be shy. Answer please. does a paralized creature threaten? Can you provide a rule based answer to this question? of course no! Because A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. So you threaten even if stunned? Of course no. Because A stunned creature can’t take actions. I just said: you threaten in your weapon’s reach. Glossary confirm this version So it doesn't matter if you can or cannot make attacks, reg or opportunity ones, yup? It count only the weapon's reach? No. It count condition too. Another question: a monk unarmed threaten? Another faq: an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all? Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. No threat? => no AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO
Marcus Majarra 06-14-07, 12:55 PM	Do you threaten before casting that quickened vampiric touch? Only if already armed. In any case, you threaten at the moment you're casting the spell, on account of being armed with a touch spell. Since you're armed, you threaten all squares encompassed by your natural reach. Nope. Can you read when you don't have anything to read? As you can see, you are mixing up the two meanings of "can". In fact, if I cannot make AoO in the first place I can't make AoO even if provoked. This shows that I can make AoO before my opponents provoke them. I'm mixing up the two meanings of the word "can?" What if you're the one confusing the two? By your definition, you're only able of making a melee attack into a given square when you still have the opportunity to do so (i.e. when you have something to read). By my definition, you're capable of making a melee attack into a given square when you have the ability to do so, even if you do not have the opportunity to do so. Here's an analogous example: you can read a certain book, even if you don't have the time to actually do so. Not having the time doesn't make you any less able to read that specific book, but being illiterate would. In D&D terms, being illiterate would equate to having something that actively makes you incapable of attacking, such as being stunned or paralyzed. I'm certain we'll both agree that an opponent needs to be threatened in order for it to provoke an attack of opportunity, correct? Furthermore, in order to provoke an attack of opportunity, the opponent would have to perform a distracting action. The thing is: until an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you are unable to attack unless you can take an action that allows you to attack (otherwise, you'd be able to attack throughout the entire round). By your logic, you would no longer be threatening any area while unable to attack. And since you no longer threaten, no longer can AoOs be provoked from you. The only way for this not to be a problem is to conclude that you're able to attack as long as you have AoOs left. This conclusion would be arbitrarily restrictive in the sense that having AoOs left merely means you have the potential to keep attacking, and there's no fixed limit on your potential to attack outside of certain conditions (paralyzed, stunned, etc.). To assume that only AoOs enable a character to attack outside his turn is ridiculous; there's enough evidence to the contrary within the rules.
Kalvalastir 06-14-07, 03:25 PM	No one had already told how it's possible to attack out of a regular turn without AoOs. Where in the rules do I find the statement "if it's not my turn, I threaten as it actually is"? I read instead: A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. This means to me that you NEED to be in your turn in order to make regular actions. Including attacks. As per the paralyzed condition. Except for a few exceptions... (pass me the wordplay...) (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) If even this excepions are negated, then you are unable to attack out of your regular turn. Clear and simple, and above all, this is from a CORE source, that has priorty over ALL sources. Someone has to add replies?
Blackstorm_SK 06-14-07, 03:35 PM	Only if already armed. In any case, you threaten at the moment you're casting the spell, on account of being armed with a touch spell. Since you're armed, you threaten all squares encompassed by your natural reach. But after you've casted your quickened spell, you don't longer threat. I'm mixing up the two meanings of the word "can?" What if you're the one confusing the two? By your definition, you're only able of making a melee attack into a given square when you still have the opportunity to do so (i.e. when you have something to read). By my definition, you're capable of making a melee attack into a given square when you have the ability to do so, even if you do not have the opportunity to do so. It's not only when you have the opportunity. You can read even if you don't have anithing to read. And you can make AoO even if you haven't the opportunity of doing so. But if something prevent you from read (AoO), like dark room in the night, you can't read anyway, even if you can... Get it? Here's an analogous example: you can read a certain book, even if you don't have the time to actually do so. Not having the time doesn't make you any less able to read that specific book, but being illiterate would. In D&D terms, being illiterate would equate to having something that actively makes you incapable of attacking, such as being stunned or paralyzed. Take a look on the example up here: you are theoretically capable of reading a book. But if your room is in darkness, and you don't have any light, ypu can't read. Yay? I'm certain we'll both agree that an opponent needs to be threatened in order for it to provoke an attack of opportunity, correct? Furthermore, in order to provoke an attack of opportunity, the opponent would have to perform a distracting action. The thing is: until an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you are unable to attack unless you can take an action that allows you to attack (otherwise, you'd be able to attack throughout the entire round). By your logic, you would no longer be threatening any area while unable to attack. And since you no longer threaten, no longer can AoOs be provoked from you. I think you're not getting the point. As a pc can attack even if there's nobody in his threatened square, he is capable of making AoO even if nobody provoke it. The only way for this not to be a problem is to conclude that you're able to attack as long as you have AoOs left. Nope. By definition of AoO, and thus of melee attack, if you say so, you're saying that a pc that hasn's reg attack left, doesn't threaten any square in his turn. That's inconsistent. This conclusion would be arbitrarily restrictive in the sense that having AoOs left merely means you have the potential to keep attacking, and there's no fixed limit on your potential to attack outside of certain conditions (paralyzed, stunned, etc.). To assume that only AoOs enable a character to attack outside his turn is ridiculous; there's enough evidence to the contrary within the rules. First, a Snake's swiftness spell allow a character to attack even if he can't male AoOs, and thus allow him to threaten. Second, being out of your turn prevent you from making attacks, as the conditions you've quoted.
Marcus Majarra 06-14-07, 04:12 PM	Where in the rules do I find the statement "if it's not my turn, I threaten as it actually is"? Right here: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. This alone indicates that you threaten as long as you are armed and capable of making a melee attack into the threatened square, whether you're acting or not. But after you've casted your quickened spell, you don't longer threat. This is by virtue of no longer being armed after discharging the spell. If the caster chooses to hold the charge on the touch spell, he remains armed and still threatens all squares around him as long as he remains armed. It's not only when you have the opportunity. You can read even if you don't have anithing to read. And you can make AoO even if you haven't the opportunity of doing so. But if something prevent you from read (AoO), like dark room in the night, you can't read anyway, even if you can... Get it? I get it, but you're contradicting yourself with your example. You state yourself that if something prevents you from reading/attacking, you can't read/attack, even if you're normally able to do so. On this, I wholeheartedly agree. What I don't agree upon is the notion that not having AoOs left prevents you from attacking until your next turn. There's simply nothing in the rules that indicates this. I think you're not getting the point. As a pc can attack even if there's nobody in his threatened square, he is capable of making AoO even if nobody provoke it. I do get the point: in order to be able to make AoOs into a given square, the PC needs to be able to make a melee attack into that square. What doesn't make sense (and something on which Egres and yourself seem to remain adamant about) is the notion that in order to make an attack into a given square, you need to be able to make AoOs into it. Nope. By definition of AoO, and thus of melee attack, if you say so, you're saying that a pc that hasn's reg attack left, doesn't threaten any square in his turn. That's inconsistent. And you're right in claiming this. It's the very reason why making the ability to threaten dependent on the ability to make AoOs makes no sense at all. First, a Snake's swiftness spell allow a character to attack even if he can't male AoOs, and thus allow him to threaten. Second, being out of your turn prevent you from making attacks, as the conditions you've quoted. You need to stop thinking that you need to be able to make AoOs in order to threaten a square. It works the other way around: you need to threaten a square in order to be able to make AoOs. As such, you cannot use the ability to make AoOs to determine whether or not you threaten a square.
thondar 06-14-07, 07:20 PM	No one had already told how it's possible to attack out of a regular turn without AoOs. Of course. You don’t need to attack out your turn for threaten. Where in the rules do I find the statement "if it's not my turn, I threaten as it actually is"? Right here: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. I quote. That’s RAW. a Snake's swiftness spell allow a character to attack even if he can't male AoOs, and thus allow him to threaten. I don’t read so. I’m unarmed. I get a Snake's swiftness. Can I attack? Yes. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because i'm unarmed. My enemy sunder a object i'm carrying. I have a aoO? No. Why? Because I don’t threaten!!!! A Snake's swiftness spell give an attack but don’t give threat! I'm awaiting some answers to my precedent posts..
Anathema 06-14-07, 08:14 PM	I really have to ask here .. what does it matter? The amount of things a person can do when they threaten, other than AoO's, is extremely limited. Why it matters can play an important role in reaching a conclusion here.
Blackstorm_SK 06-14-07, 09:31 PM	Of course. You don’t need to attack out your turn for threaten. Yeah. So I must make a concentration check to cast a spell in my turn, 'cause this big guy from wich I have cover and that cannot make any kind of attack to me is threatening. Wow. and all this, even if i can't harm me. I provoke his attack. That he can't do. Wow. I'm in doubt: he cannot do AoO, but he still threaten. Uhm, do I make a concentration check for avoid the AoO while casting (and thus I risk the loss of the spell due to failed check), or take the risk and cast without make the check? Hmm... strange. I think that should be more risky casting a spell without the check, than making tha check, in a threatened area. Wow. Maybe I've always think the wrong thing, uh? I quote. That’s RAW. So, that "even when it's not your action" is referred to the threaten? Ok. Let's say you're right. So your statement could be rewrited as "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" (I remember you, thondar, that you've said that in the italian board.) Now, I think that a rightly enough definition for a threatened square can be: "a square in wich you can a melee attack", following your separation of phrases. Now, I think that for your interpretation doesn't change if I say: "You threaten these squares even when it's not your action." Yeah? Maybe a those instead of these, but don't change anything anyway. So, the second phrase says: "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." By the definition of threatened square, extracted from your statement. And this definition is without commas. I don’t read so. Oh, you don't read so even every other thing that may deny your thesis. I’m unarmed. I get a Snake's swiftness. Can I attack? Yes. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because i'm unarmed. My enemy sunder a object i'm carrying. I have a aoO? No. Why? Because I don’t threaten!!!! And if I'm armed? A Snake's swiftness spell give an attack but don’t give threat! So you can attack without threatening? So much strange. I'm awaiting some answers to my precedent posts.. I too. Draw game.
Blackstorm_SK 06-14-07, 09:32 PM	I really have to ask here .. what does it matter? The amount of things a person can do when they threaten, other than AoO's, is extremely limited. Why it matters can play an important role in reaching a conclusion here. Sorry, but I can't understand your question. Can you explain it in a clearly way?
Anathema 06-14-07, 10:06 PM	Sorry, but I can't understand your question. Can you explain it in a clearly way? Can you describe when it matters if you threaten someone for a reason other than AoO's? Here's why that matters: The PHB's glossary seems to pretty definitively state that a threatened square is one that is within melee reach. If a person becomes helpless and cannot take any attacks, or if they take their AoO for that round, does it matter if someone in their threat range provokes? It seems as if the whole argument is pretty moot, because in either case, the person who provoked won't be attacked by the person who's helpless (but still threatening) The only thing I see in the core rules is that you aren't allowed to take 10 when threatened (or distracted), but even then I see the point is moot as combat can easily be considered distracting even if the person isn't threatened by someone that's helpless.
Leilond 06-15-07, 03:15 AM	Can you describe when it matters if you threaten someone for a reason other than AoO's? Providing flanking bonus to an ally Providing the sneak attack opportunity to a rogue ally
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 03:36 AM	Where in the rules do I find the statement "if it's not my turn, I threaten as it actually is"? Right here: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. I quote. That’s RAW. These are not Rules-As-Written. These are Rules-As-You-Mean-To-Be-Intended. You see? They are not written the same, here we have two different sentences and YOU say they are meaning the same... but they are not WRITTEN the same. So, please, don't come and say you are reading the rules as written.
Leilond 06-15-07, 03:52 AM	These are not Rules-As-Written. These are Rules-As-You-Mean-To-Be-Intended. You see? They are not written the same, here we have two different sentences and YOU say they are meaning the same... but they are not WRITTEN the same. So, please, don't come and say you are reading the rules as written. This is the rule You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Again the same issue we all understand! We read the same phrase and understand two different things I read the rule and I feel clear as the sun that it works like we say You read the rules and feel clear as the sun that it works like you say How can we comprend eachother if we don't explain what we understand reading that phrase? How can we comprend eachother if we don't use "different wording" to explain the phrase that we read in two different ways? It appears you want us to justify our position without explaining what it is written, while you don't need to do the same Well. Here you are The rule is You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. So we are right because the RAW say so P.S. As you see, this approach don't work. We and you must explain the meaning of a phrase using different wordin when the understanding of that phrase isn't unique. The most important reason is that we two are italian and it isn't written in our mother language and there's the possibility of a "lost in translation"
Blackstorm_SK 06-15-07, 04:21 AM	P.S. As you see, this approach don't work. We and you must explain the meaning of a phrase using different wordin when the understanding of that phrase isn't unique. The most important reason is that we two are italian and it isn't written in our mother language and there's the possibility of a "lost in translation" Ok. So, that "even when it's not your action" is referred to the threaten? Ok. Let's say you're right. So your statement could be rewrited as "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" (I remember you, thondar, that you've said that in the italian board.) Now, I think that a rightly enough definition for a threatened square can be: "a square in wich you can a melee attack", following your separation of phrases. Now, I think that for your interpretation doesn't change if I say: "You threaten these squares even when it's not your action." Yeah? Maybe a those instead of these, but don't change anything anyway. So, the second phrase says: "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." By the definition of threatened square, extracted from your statement. And this definition is without commas. So?
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 04:58 AM	Well. Here you are The rule is You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. So we are right because the RAW say so So What? Here we are: if "it's not your action" you still need to "make a melee attack" in order to "threaten" a "square". As you can see, I don't need to explain anything with other "wordings", as you said. Plain RAW. Could you? I remember thus that being in your turn is a prerequisite for making actions: A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. And that: (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) So, AoOs are exceptions to the normal rule of performing actions.
Leilond 06-15-07, 06:41 AM	Here we are: if "it's not your action" you still need to "make a melee attack" in order to "threaten" a "square". As you can see, I don't need to explain anything with other "wordings", as you said. Plain RAW. Plain RAW is You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Tou reworded the rules changing the order and not using some other word. You interpreted because you must do it to explain yourself. You only wrote down some "rule word" inside a not RAW phrase You interpreted the meaning of "even if it is not your action" You give a meaning to that phrase, different from us You say "even if it is not your action" means that you must "attack" even if it is not you action We say "even if it is not you action" means you threaten even if it is not you action Two completely different meanings because you and us understand two different things You say that you interpretation isn't an interpretetation, but it's RAW Well, I say you're wrong and I explained it why and how You aren't satisfied and continue to claim that you can understand better of us the meaning of a phrase I think it isn't usefull to repeat what I've already said, for noone. There are enought post of mine that explain my view
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 06:55 AM	Good, but what about the second part of my message? I remember you again that being in your turn is a prerequisite for performing actions: A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. And that: (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) So, AoOs are exceptions to the normal rule of performing actions. And other exceptions explicitly stated in the rules are Special Initiative Actions, Free Actions like speaking, Immediate Actions or nonactions. Out of these very few exceptions, when it's not your action you are unable to act. As for the paralyzed condition. It is absurd, maybe, but this is the way combat works in D&D.
Leilond 06-15-07, 07:06 AM	All the consideration are made starting by the interpretation of the first sentences You interpret that phrase in that way and for this reason you search about rules about turns and AoO in the manuals We think that the definition of "threatened square" is plain and simple and, most of all, autosufficent. All you need is in that phrase, without the need to go around searching for other rules You threaten in your reach You do not threaten if something prevent you to attack as a whole. AoOs aren't an issue Turns aren't an issue Rules about this two things aren't related to the situation. We are interpreting the phrase, and we know we're doing it We think you're doing the same, but you claim you aren't I understand. I'm satisfied. I think I'm right. This don't mean I'm right.
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 07:16 AM	You threaten in your reach You do not threaten if something prevent you to attack as a whole. AoOs aren't an issue Turns aren't an issue I quite clearly showed you that turns ARE an issue in order to determine if you are able to act (and thus to "attack as a whole") or not. How could you ignore this?
Leilond 06-15-07, 09:02 AM	I quite clearly showed you that turns ARE an issue in order to determine if you are able to act (and thus to "attack as a whole") or not. How could you ignore this? Because the rule say so "even if it is not your action" I know you cannot accept our interpretation, like I cannot accept yours I can understand it, even if I still cannot understand why if you run out of AoO you still threaten, but it isn't a problem... it's your interpretation, not ours. I think you're misundestanding the rule, and from that misunderstanding you start a lot of consideration that the rules (for us) say they've to be ignored Until you don't accept that the problem is the meaning of that single phrase, you'll continue to write a mountain of rules that (for us) have to be ignored because the rule say so The fact that we think we're right doesn't means we are, nor it means you are.
Blackstorm_SK 06-15-07, 09:17 AM	Leilond, I'm waiting for this: So, that "even when it's not your action" is referred to the threaten? Ok. Let's say you're right. So your statement could be rewrited as "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" (I remember you, thondar, that you've said that in the italian board.) Now, I think that a rightly enough definition for a threatened square can be: "a square in wich you can a melee attack", following your separation of phrases. Now, I think that for your interpretation doesn't change if I say: "You threaten these squares even when it's not your action." Yeah? Maybe a those instead of these, but don't change anything anyway. So, the second phrase says: "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." By the definition of threatened square, extracted from your statement. And this definition is without commas. AFAIK, I remember that you're agree with thondar on the phrase from wich I'started.
thondar 06-15-07, 09:22 AM	So I must make a concentration check to cast a spell in my turn, 'cause this big guy from wich I have cover and that cannot make any kind of attack to me is threatening. Wow. and all this, even if i can't harm me. I provoke his attack. That he can't do. Wow. I'm in doubt: he cannot do AoO, but he still threaten. Uhm, do I make a concentration check for avoid the AoO while casting (and thus I risk the loss of the spell due to failed check), or take the risk and cast without make the check? It’s the rule. It’s D&D. If you don’t like you can HR. Your interpretation say I can ignore my enemy because there’s a 1 meter high wall between us? It’s realistic? I don’t think so. At least our interpretation comply the rules (and the faqs). "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." It’s ambiguous (or totally wrong). "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" This one it’s better. It’s enough to can attack in your turn for threaten all round. Except for different conditions (be out of your turn no change nothing). a Snake's swiftness spell allow a character to attack even if he can't male AoOs, and thus allow him to threaten. I don’t read so. Oh, you don't read so even every other thing that may deny your thesis. I don’t read Snake's swiftness spell allow to threaten in the description. Do you read it somewhere? A Snake's swiftness spell give an attack but don’t give threat! I’m unarmed. I get a Snake's swiftness. Can I attack? Yes. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because i'm unarmed. My enemy sunder a object i'm carrying. I have a aoO? No. Why? Because I don’t threaten!!!! A Snake's swiftness spell give an attack but don’t give threat! I think it’s clear. So you can attack without threatening? So much strange. Strange? It’s normal! Look here: If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares I can attack unarmed. Melee Attacks With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet). I don’t read about threat for regular attack (oppositely for AoO). And if I'm armed? I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. I'm awaiting some answers to my precedent posts.. I too. Draw game. Sorry. Which questions? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Here we are: if "it's not your action" you still need to "make a melee attack" in order to "threaten" a "square". As you can see, I don't need to explain anything with other "wordings", as you said. Plain RAW. Could you? Yes, i can! "You threaten" "even when it is not your action"
Leilond 06-15-07, 09:23 AM	So, that "even when it's not your action" is referred to the threaten? Ok. Let's say you're right. So your statement could be rewrited as "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" (I remember you, thondar, that you've said that in the italian board.) Now, I think that a rightly enough definition for a threatened square can be: "a square in wich you can a melee attack", following your separation of phrases. Now, I think that for your interpretation doesn't change if I say: "You threaten these squares even when it's not your action." Yeah? Maybe a those instead of these, but don't change anything anyway. So, the second phrase says: "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." By the definition of threatened square, extracted from your statement. And this definition is without commas. You totally change the wording of a rule, totally changing it meaning and pretend that it demostrate you're right? You added words, deleted commas..... changed the meaning of the phrase
Egres 06-15-07, 09:26 AM	negate what? Be clear I'm clear: you must improve your Enlgish. The IUS feat states what it means to be armed, and it doesn't say anything about threatening. Out your turn you say: I threat if I can make AoO But rules say too: To make AoO I need threat This loop is infinite. Actually, you are wrong. If I can make AoO I threat, and thus the loop is finished. It's just the rules of the Convention of Bruxelles:if you cann apply them, the Convention applies, but in order to apply them you have to know if the Convention applies. If you are new to rules/law system this can be difficult to understand. Or maybe PHBII is wrong o maybe it don't say you don't threat.. It actually states that you don't threaten. If you can't understand the English language take a seral course. Much (7, 8? i lost my count) faq support my position and negate yours. Actually, only one FAQ supports your position. Try to cite other FAQ that support your view if you can. But I asked the difference in your interpretation and an example. Don’t be shy. Answer please. The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. of course no! Because A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. Where does it states that a paralized creature doesn't threaten? Rules based answer, please. Of course no. Because A stunned creature can’t take actions. Read above. a monk unarmed threaten? Maybe. But the IUS feat states something different. If you can't take AoOs and it's not your turn, are there any squares into which you can make a melee attack? The text of AoOs states "If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity". The text for Strike, Unarmed is silent on the matter. The text for Unarmed Attacks states "An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity", and for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)". So if an unarmed character doesn't threaten squares and thus can't make AoOs, but an 'armed' unarmed character can make AoOs, then - based on the assertion that despite being unable to make AoOs, a flat-footed character threatens - do we assume that the 'armed' unarmed character, while released from the No-AoOs restriction, is still subject to the 'doesn't threaten any squares' limitation? No threat? => no AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO No AoO? No threatening. They influence each other. Deja vu. Only if already armed. In any case, you threaten at the moment you're casting the spell, on account of being armed with a touch spell. Since you're armed, you threaten all squares encompassed by your natural reach. And? What are you trying to prove here? By your definition, you're only able of making a melee attack into a given square when you still have the opportunity to do so (i.e. when you have something to read). Not the opportunity, but the ability to do so. (i.e.: AoO aren't negated) Read my posts carefully. In D&D terms, being illiterate would equate to having something that actively makes you incapable of attacking, such as being stunned or paralyzed Or being flat footed during your opponent's turn. I'm certain we'll both agree that an opponent needs to be threatened in order for it to provoke an attack of opportunity, correct? Furthermore, in order to provoke an attack of opportunity, the opponent would have to perform a distracting action. The thing is: until an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you are unable to attack unless you can take an action that allows you to attack (otherwise, you'd be able to attack throughout the entire round). By my definition, you're capable of making a melee attack into a given square when you have the ability to do so, even if you do not have the opportunity to do so. You are clearly contradicting yourself here, Marcus. Thanks for the support. This alone indicates that you threaten as long as you are armed and capable of making a melee attack into the threatened square, whether you're acting or not. Right. But during your opponent's turn if you are flat footed you incapable of making attack. You state yourself that if something prevents you from reading/attacking, you can't read/attack, even if you're normally able to do so. On this, I wholeheartedly agree. What I don't agree upon is the notion that not having AoOs left prevents you from attacking until your next turn. There's simply nothing in the rules that indicates this. Actually, in this thread the equation "AoO negated=no AoO left" has been clearly shown as patently wrong, so I wonder why you still use it. Did you read my posts carefully? Cite where I have said that you no longer threaten if you are out of AoO, please, or reconsider your position. I do get the point: in order to be able to make AoOs into a given square, the PC needs to be able to make a melee attack into that square. What doesn't make sense (and something on which Egres and yourself seem to remain adamant about) is the notion that in order to make an attack into a given square, you need to be able to make AoOs into it. If the only attacks allowed in a square are AoOs, you don't threaten if AoO are negated. I’m unarmed. I get a Snake's swiftness. Can I attack? Yes. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because i'm unarmed. My enemy sunder a object i'm carrying. I have a aoO? No. Why? Because I don’t threaten!!!! Only becasue there a specific rule that says it so, not because there's a general rule. Maybe you don't know the difference between a general and a specific rule. As per the paralyzed condition. Except for a few exceptions... (pass me the wordplay...) Quote:Originally Posted by SRD (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) If even this excepions are negated, then you are unable to attack out of your regular turn. Clear and simple, and above all, this is from a CORE source, that has priorty over ALL sources. Someone has to add replies? This passagge is nonsensical. Try to rearrange it. I really have to ask here .. what does it matter? The amount of things a person can do when they threaten, other than AoO's, is extremely limited. Why it matters can play an important role in reaching a conclusion here. Becasue there are fetas like Mage slayer. If you can threaten even if you can't attack your opponent at all, this feat would negate a caster the ability to cast defensively (thus provoking AoO from all the other opponents in the area), even if he has nothing to worry about the character with the MS feat. Nonsense. I can understand it, even if I still cannot understand why if you run out of AoO you still threaten, but it isn't a problem... it's your interpretation, not ours For the same reason why you still threaten during your turn even if you are out of regular attacks. That's so easy to understand.
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 09:34 AM	Because the rule say so "even if it is not your action" Good... so you threaten an enemy even when Blinded and Deafened (please note that neither of the two conditions explicitly states that you are unable to attack, except for the Blinded condition that provides Total Concealment, but Total Concealment do not blocks you from attacking a given square). You are saying that if you are Blinded and Deafened, and a foe casts a spell in your range, you can freely make an AoO, because the very two conditions (foe in the treatened area + provoking action) are met. Don't you think it's a little bit absurd?
Leilond 06-15-07, 09:44 AM	For the same reason why you still threaten during your turn even if you are out of regular attacks. That's so easy to understand. So easy that you are not able to explain it to 10 different users that do not agree with you (in this thread.... plus some other users on the other thread). You're always the same rude user, no matter the language you use. You really need to understand the meaning of the word "netiquette". I'd like pointing you that, in this thread only, Kal and Black support your interpretation. This doesn't means you're wrong, that's obvious... but it demostrate that pheraps the rule isn't so "plain" as you suppose. Or do you really pretend to say that within more than 13 users only 3, that do not have english as mother language, can correctly read the rule?
Egres 06-15-07, 10:08 AM	So easy that you are not able to explain it to 10 different users that do not agree with you (in this thread.... plus some other users on the other thread). You're always the same rude user, no matter the language you use. You really need to understand the meaning of the word "netiquette". I'd like pointing you that, in this thread only, Kal and Black support your interpretation. This doesn't means you're wrong, that's obvious... but it demostrate that pheraps the rule isn't so "plain" as you suppose. Or do you really pretend to say that within more than 13 users only 3, that do not have english as mother language, can correctly read the rule? Actually this thread sees only you, thondar and Marcus insisting. Not to mention that you can't imagine how many PM I have received of people bored of your stubborness, asking me why I waste my time with you. I'm talking seriously, you should appreciate the fact that I treat you with respect, instead of simply ignoring you like they do. Besides that, in this thread and in the other one you are mentioning my posts made many people change their mind on this subject, while yours didn't change anything. And you are one of those people. Ma non vi basta che vi abbia dato ragione sul 90% della questione. Che siate riusciti a dimostrare (almeno a me) che sbagliavo nel 90% dei casi? Volete anche dimostrare che una esplicita affermazione di chi le regole le scrive è sbagliata? Bhe, per questo dovete fare ben altro Translation: Aren't you satisfied? I have conceded 90% of your points. Would you even show me that an explicit statement of the game's authors (i.e. the FAQ) is wrong? You should do better than that, then. It won't be the firs wrong FAQ out there... there are dozens
Anathema 06-15-07, 11:22 AM	Providing flanking bonus to an ally Providing the sneak attack opportunity to a rogue ally Now I just feel silly. That being said, it seems pretty clear by the spirit of the written definitions that you are able to threat as long as you are not helpless. The spirit of the rule appears to me to make a square threatened as long as someone has melee reach in to that square, not if they can legally make an attack at a given moment; especially considering the whole game would get mucked up even more between people trying to obtain more out-of-action attacks (via combat reflexes or what have you) and keeping track of whom you have run out of attacks on and whom you haven't. The argument that a person doesn't threaten if they have "run out of attacks" for a round is a valid one, by diagramming the sentence in a certain way, but still does not seem to be in the spirit of the rule. After all, where does it stop? If you can ignore the distraction caused by someone who has run out of AoO's (metagaming, in this sense); then what's to stop you from ignoring the distraction of someone who can cause no appreciable damage to you? A wizard with a crappy dagger still threatens someone with DR; because it's not about what you can do, it's about where you stand, and if you are still fighting.
Kalvalastir 06-15-07, 11:31 AM	This doesn't means you're wrong, that's obvious... but it demostrate that pheraps the rule isn't so "plain" as you suppose. Well, it's not so plain in fact. See, Egres is more used in Rule Lawyering than you, and this is the reason why he thinks the rule it's simple. But your interpretation takes to some serious incongruences ad absurd situations, like a Blinded and Deafened character, who is able to make AoOs even if he's not aware that a provoking action is taking place... (he's Blinded and Deafened, how is this possible?). Unreal. Our interpretations, on the other side, says that if you are Blinded and Deafened you can't threaten the area around you out of your turn, because foes have Total Concealment from you (and thus you can't make AoOs when a provoking action takes place in your reach). Coherent.
weasel0 06-15-07, 12:40 PM	Quote: I'm certain we'll both agree that an opponent needs to be threatened in order for it to provoke an attack of opportunity, correct? Furthermore, in order to provoke an attack of opportunity, the opponent would have to perform a distracting action. The thing is: until an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you are unable to attack unless you can take an action that allows you to attack (otherwise, you'd be able to attack throughout the entire round). Quote: By my definition, you're capable of making a melee attack into a given square when you have the ability to do so, even if you do not have the opportunity to do so. You are clearly contradicting yourself here, Marcus. Thanks for the support. See that purple(DarkOrchid)? Let's not ignore it. The red and green are not contradictory. Lacking in opportunity does not mean lack of ability. As long as there is ability, you threaten. Then if the opportunity presents itself, you may use it, but you may not(no more AoOs). But you still have the ability, thus still threaten.
Marcus Majarra 06-15-07, 01:55 PM	If you can't take AoOs and it's not your turn, are there any squares into which you can make a melee attack? If an opponent doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity from you and it's not your turn, can you make a melee attack into his square? If not, then by definition, you do not threaten his square. Furthermore, this means the opponent can never provoke AoOs from you because he needs to be in a threatened square in order to provoke AoOs.
Anathema 06-15-07, 06:50 PM	If an opponent doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity from you and it's not your turn, can you make a melee attack into his square? If not, then by definition, you do not threaten his square. Furthermore, this means the opponent can never provoke AoOs from you because he needs to be in a threatened square in order to provoke AoOs. That doesn't work at all. The way you describe it says that you can't attack until the guy provokes, but since they don't do anything to provoke you can't threaten, and if you aren't threatening them then you can't do an AoO. That's a Catch-22 my friend.
Blackstorm_SK 06-15-07, 07:52 PM	So, that "even when it's not your action" is referred to the threaten? Ok. Let's say you're right. So your statement could be rewrited as "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" (I remember you, thondar, that you've said that in the italian board.) Now, I think that a rightly enough definition for a threatened square can be: "a square in wich you can a melee attack", following your separation of phrases. Now, I think that for your interpretation doesn't change if I say: "You threaten these squares even when it's not your action." Yeah? Maybe a those instead of these, but don't change anything anyway. So, the second phrase says: "You threaten these square in wich you can make an attack even when it's not you're action." By the definition of threatened square, extracted from your statement. And this definition is without commas.You totally change the wording of a rule, totally changing it meaning and pretend that it demostrate you're right? You added words, deleted commas..... changed the meaning of the phrase You're blameing me for changing the wording when you and thondar, in first instance sustain that: "You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten even when it's not you action" Is the correct wording? Be honest, please. I've only explained some passage. But starting from this statement that you and thondar are saying that's correct, I can do the same without the passages above. The first phrase is your definition of threaten. The second is referred to when you threaten. Then I can do a logical, and totally correct substitution: You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack even when it's not you action. It's only the substitution of threaten with its definition. It's not changing the wording. And this time this is without commas. It's basic grammar. So, if you want to blame me of changing wording, let's speak of your wording change. Then we can speak of mine. Originally Posted by blackstorm So I must make a concentration check to cast a spell in my turn, 'cause this big guy from wich I have cover and that cannot make any kind of attack to me is threatening. Wow. and all this, even if i can't harm me. I provoke his attack. That he can't do. Wow. I'm in doubt: he cannot do AoO, but he still threaten. Uhm, do I make a concentration check for avoid the AoO while casting (and thus I risk the loss of the spell due to failed check), or take the risk and cast without make the check? It’s the rule. It’s D&D. If you don’t like you can HR. Is your rule. Your interpretation say I can ignore my enemy because there’s a 1 meter high wall between us? It’s realistic? I don’t think so. Your interpretation says that I must care of my enemy, and eventually make a totally useless concentration check, even if he cannot in any way attack me? It's realistic? I don't think so. At least our interpretation comply the rules (and the faqs). It doesn't seems. I, egres, kal... we don't have changed our rules explaination, while you're changing it in many different way to sustain your thesis. I don’t read Snake's swiftness spell allow to threaten in the description. Do you read it somewhere? A Snake's swiftness spell give an attack but don’t give threat! Your definition of threat, taken from your words, is: You threaten all squares in wich you can make a melee attack. So, it seems to me that you're really contraddict yourself. With this, you're saying that SSwiftness spell give you an attack without the threat, but for your definition of threat the attack gives you threat. A & not(A)? I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. See up. It still seems be contraddictory. Originally Posted by blackstorm Quote: Originally Posted by thondar I'm awaiting some answers to my precedent posts.. I too. Draw game. Let's play: find yourself. The argument that a person doesn't threaten if they have "run out of attacks" for a round is a valid one, by diagramming the sentence in a certain way, but still does not seem to be in the spirit of the rule. Sorry, but where in this topic you find that someone of us (I, Kal, Egres) said that if you're running out of AoOs you don't longer threaten? See that purple(DarkOrchid)? Let's not ignore it. The red and green are not contradictory. Lacking in opportunity does not mean lack of ability. As long as there is ability, you threaten. Then if the opportunity presents itself, you may use it, but you may not(no more AoOs). But you still have the ability, thus still threaten. It seems to be a "blindness". Where, where, where we have said that not having AoOs left means no threaten? Quote it, please. Where? Read carefully.
weasel0 06-15-07, 08:47 PM	No AoO, no threatening: end of the apparent loop. "We" said it right there. That's a Catch-22 my friend. I think that was his (sarcasticly ironic)point.
Blackstorm_SK 06-15-07, 08:56 PM	No AoO, no threatening: end of the apparent loop. "We" said it right there. Oh, God. For over 100 posts we've said that no AoOs left in no way mean that you don't threaten. Do you think that this single phrases don't mean "AoOs are negate to you"? Or we must specify every single time we say it? Be serious.
PenderGrass 06-15-07, 09:10 PM	>>Horrible Font Colors<< Egads, I just have to say those were just horrid and hurt my eyes - couldn't you find a better way to have done that? :dragon: ****
weasel0 06-15-07, 09:16 PM	You, Blackstorm havn't said it. Kal hasn't said it. Egres also has said ... he/she agrees, but has made the comment I quoted and one further back. So I will digress the point. It seems that everyone is arguing the for the same point from two differint ways. >>Horrible Font Colors<<Lol, well two of them I didn't "pick", I used them from the quotes they came from. The Orchid..whatever may have been a little over-the-top, but I need contrast. :)
PenderGrass 06-15-07, 09:20 PM	Lol, well two of them I didn't "pick", I used them from the quotes they came from. The Orchid..whatever may have been a little over-the-top, but I need contrast. :) Righty-O. Odin's blind eye, they were worthy of finding my shades. :cool: :dragon: ****
Marcus Majarra 06-15-07, 11:47 PM	Okay, we need to come to some sort of consensus (or achieve what mvincent would consider "a conclusively discussed topic.") Here's what I can conclude: 1) You threaten all squares into which you are capable of making a melee attack, whether it's your turn to act or not. 2) You must be armed (or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) in order to threaten. 3) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks prevent you from threatening. 4) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks of opportunity don't prevent you from threatening unless they also prevent you from making attacks. 5) Running out of attacks does not equate to being prevented from attacking. Otherwise, you'd be unable to threaten from the moment you run out of attacks. This very notion would make little sense, as you only have the potential to make attacks when you're not actively attacking, and this potential is virtually limitless. 6) The total defense action does not prevent you from attacking as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity, as stated under the action's description (PHB142). A core example of attacking while using total defense could be a choker's actions for the round. Chokers can take an extra move or standard action every round. As such, it could very well move, attack, and switch to total defense (or any combination thereof). This is consistent with the FAQ, but not with the PHB2 (under Active Shield Defense, PHII71), which mistakingly indicates the normal state of total defense as being completely unable to attack while using total defense. 7) While cover might prevent you from making attacks of opportunity against an opponent, you're perfectly capable of making attacks into a square with cover. As such, you still threaten a square with cover, despite being unable to make attacks of opportunity.
Blackstorm_SK 06-16-07, 12:08 AM	Okay, we need to come to some sort of consensus (or achieve what mvincent would consider "a conclusively discussed topic.") I don't think so. But, if you want, no prob. Here's what I can conclude: 1) You threaten all squares into which you are capable of making a melee attack, whether it's your turn to act or not. 2) You must be armed (or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) in order to threaten. Or have a natural weapon, don't forget. 3) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks prevent you from threatening. Yeah. 4) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks of opportunity don't prevent you from threatening unless they also prevent you from making attacks. Uh... Didn't seems to me that the AoOs are a "minor league" melee attacks. Where you've stated it? I've missed. And what about the "out-of-my-turn-that-prevent-me-from-making-attacks-but-that-you-must-ignore-because-if-you-consider-it-your-theory-is-inconsistent" status? 5) Running out of attacks does not equate to being prevented from attacking. Otherwise, you'd be unable to threaten from the moment you run out of attacks. This very notion would make little sense, as you only have the potential to make attacks when you're not actively attacking, and this potential is virtually limitless. Yup. 6) The total defense action does not prevent you from attacking as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity, as stated under the action's description (PHB142). A core example of attacking while using total defense could be a choker's actions for the round. Chokers can take an extra move or standard action every round. As such, it could very well move, attack, and switch to total defense (or any combination thereof). This is consistent with the FAQ, but not with the PHB2 (under Active Shield Defense, PHII71), which mistakingly indicates the normal state of total defense as being completely unable to attack while using total defense. And you have a hierarchy in wich the faq comes before the phb2 regarding sources? 7) While cover might prevent you from making attacks of opportunity against an opponent, you're perfectly capable of making attacks into a square with cover. As such, you still threaten a square with cover, despite being unable to make attacks of opportunity. So it's more dangerous making a concentration check if you have a cover than casting a spell without the check and provoking AoO, rather than viceversa. Oh, this really mekes sense: casting defensively is more dangerous ('cause you can fail it) than provonking an aoo, and as addendum you have even a ac bonus. Yeah, really a big sense. And they say me: "Be realistic". Aw.
Marcus Majarra 06-16-07, 01:37 AM	Uh... Didn't seems to me that the AoOs are a "minor league" melee attacks. Where you've stated it? I've missed. And what about the "out-of-my-turn-that-prevent-me-from-making-attacks-but-that-you-must-ignore-because-if-you-consider-it-your-theory-is-inconsistent" status? I'm not sure what you mean about this. All I was stating is that rules applying specifically to AoOs don't necessarily apply to attacks in general. In any case, not being on your turn does not prevent you from attacking. And you have a hierarchy in wich the faq comes before the phb2 regarding sources? No, but I do have two other facts: 1) The FAQ isn't meant to introduce new rules. It's there to provide clarification on the existing rules. As a general guideline, the FAQ doesn't contradict the rules. It explains them in more detail. The FAQ isn't fullproof, but in this instance, it is not contradicting the PHB. 2) Errata policy favors primary sources like the PHB over any other rule supplement. Where a rule supplement contradicts the PHB, the PHB wins if the PHB is the primary source for that rule. Here's the exact quote from the official errata: When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. By this fact alone, the PHB takes precedence over the PHB2 concerning the normal extent of the total defense action. So it's more dangerous making a concentration check if you have a cover than casting a spell without the check and provoking AoO, rather than viceversa. Oh, this really mekes sense: casting defensively is more dangerous ('cause you can fail it) than provonking an aoo, and as addendum you have even a ac bonus. Yeah, really a big sense. And they say me: "Be realistic". Aw. This makes no sense at all. It's no more difficult to concentrate to cast defensively whether you have cover or not. The only difference cover makes is that you don't actually need to cast defensively since the cover takes care of defending you when you would otherwise leave yourself open to attack. Having cover doesn't make you impervious to an opponent's melee attack. In fact, the opponent can very well attack you on his turn, or ready to attack you when you begin casting (and possibly interrupt your spellcasting).
Egres 06-16-07, 04:47 AM	Now I just feel silly. That being said, it seems pretty clear by the spirit of the written definitions that you are able to threat as long as you are not helpless. Or stunned, nauseated, flat footed during your opponent's turn and so on. keeping track of whom you have run out of attacks on and whom you haven't. We have never said that if you run out of AoO you don't threaten anymore. Lacking in opportunity does not mean lack of ability. As long as there is ability, you threaten. Then if the opportunity presents itself, you may use it, but you may not(no more AoOs). But you still have the ability, thus still threaten. And I agree, but that's not what Marcus wrote. Read: until an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you are unable to attack unless you can take an action that allows you to attack If an opponent doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity from you and it's not your turn, can you make a melee attack into his square? Yes. Yu can read even when you have no books at hand. All I was stating is that rules applying specifically to AoOs don't necessarily apply to attacks in general. In any case, not being on your turn does not prevent you from attacking. What if you are flat footed? By this fact alone, the PHB takes precedence over the PHB2 concerning the normal extent of the total defense action. Unfortunately the PHB doesn't negate what the PHB II states.
thondar 06-16-07, 08:47 AM	The IUS feat states what it means to be armed, and it doesn't say anything about threatening. The threat’s definition states unarmed as an exception. We are speaking about threat so his definition is the primary source. The IUS don’t contradict: omit. Anyway you are saying a monk don’t threat!! I’m unarmed (no feat). I threat? No. because threat’s definition say unarmed don’t threat. I’m unarmed but I have IUS. I threat? IUS don’t say I threat but say I’m armed and threat’s definition say that armed pg threats. If I can make AoO I threat, and thus the loop is finished You can’t do AoO if you don’t threat. Why do you repeat yourself? Actually, only one FAQ supports your position. Try to cite other FAQ that support your view if you can. ok Total cover prevents any attack against you. You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. etc etc A. [...] You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover one. I can’t attack but I threat. Can you make a trip attack (or other special attack) as an attack of opportunity? Yes, as long as you make the trip attack (or other special attack) with a weapon with which you threaten the target. For example, unless you wield a weapon that allows you to make a trip attack, trip attacks are unarmed attacks; a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity. two if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Does a spiritual weapon get to make attacks of opportunity? Actually, since the spell indicates specifically that spiritual weapon strikes as a spell, and not a weapon, it is not allowed an attack of opportunity when normally provoked. Likewise, the technical definition of an attack of opportunity requires that you threaten the opponent in question (see PHB page 137). While you do direct the spiritual weapon to attack, you are not technically wielding the weapon, and so you do not threaten the square into which it is attacking. three if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Is a warforged considered to be wearing gauntlets, and therefore always armed? A warforged always threatens squares within its reach, but not because it’s considered to be wearing gauntlets. A warforged has a natural slam attack, and thus always threatens squares within its reach. four Threat depend on reach Is a character wielding a two-handed reach weapon (such as a longspear) and wearing spiked armor threatening all squares within 10 feet? Assuming he has Combat Reflexes, can he make an attack of opportunity with his longspear and then with his armor spikes in the same round? A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away. five Threat depend on reach Will a reach weapon (or natural reach) allow you to make an attack of opportunity against a foe using the Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack feats against you? Having superior reach allows a creature to threaten more squares, but it doesn’t allow that creature to make attacks of opportunity when it otherwise could not. Six Threat depend on reach but don’t depend on AoO an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all? Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. seven if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Only seven! I thinked more… Ok. Later I will post something new. I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. Suuure. So for you there’s flavour test in a definition…. I’m unarmed. I get a Snake's swiftness. Can I attack? Yes. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because i'm unarmed. My enemy sunder a object i'm carrying. I have a aoO? No. Why? Because I don’t threaten!!!! Only because there a specific rule that says it so, not because there's a general rule. Unarmed say I can’t do AoO because I don’t threat. Snake's swiftness give or no an AoO? No. Why? Because it don’t remove the don’t threat condition. So Snake's swiftness don’t give threat. Now I’m flat footed (first round) but I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. You are saying that if you are Blinded and Deafened, and a foe casts a spell in your range, you can freely make an AoO, because the very two conditions (foe in the treatened area + provoking action) are met. Blindness give Total concealment to my enemy, so I can’t do AoO. But I threaten (if I know in which squares you are). It’s logic. I’m a danger for you. Here's what I can conclude: 1) You threaten all squares into which you are capable of making a melee attack, whether it's your turn to act or not. I agree 2) You must be armed (or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) in order to threaten. Or have a natural weapon, don't forget. I agree 3) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks prevent you from threatening. I agree 4) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks of opportunity don't prevent you from threatening unless they also prevent you from making attacks. I agree Uh... Didn't seems to me that the AoOs are a "minor league" melee attacks. Where you've stated it? I've missed. And what about the "out-of-my-turn-that-prevent-me-from-making-attacks-but-that-you-must-ignore- because-if-you-consider-it-your-theory-is-inconsistent" status? You know the answer. out-of-my-turn-that-prevent-me-from-making-attacks-but-that-you-must-ignore- because-even-when-it-is-not-your-action 5) Running out of attacks does not equate to being prevented from attacking. Otherwise, you'd be unable to threaten from the moment you run out of attacks. This very notion would make little sense, as you only have the potential to make attacks when you're not actively attacking, and this potential is virtually limitless. I agree 6) The total defense action does not prevent you from attacking as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity, as stated under the action's description (PHB142). A core example of attacking while using total defense could be a choker's actions for the round. Chokers can take an extra move or standard action every round. As such, it could very well move, attack, and switch to total defense (or any combination thereof). This is consistent with the FAQ, but not with the PHB2 (under Active Shield Defense, PHII71), which mistakingly indicates the normal state of total defense as being completely unable to attack while using total defense. I agree. Unfortunately the PHB doesn't negate what the PHB II states. Not’s a problem. Maybe PHB II clarify PHB. Maybe it's wrong. 7) While cover might prevent you from making attacks of opportunity against an opponent, you're perfectly capable of making attacks into a square with cover. As such, you still threaten a square with cover, despite being unable to make attacks of opportunity. I agree That being said, it seems pretty clear by the spirit of the written definitions that you are able to threat as long as you are not helpless. Or stunned, nauseated, flat footed during your opponent's turn and so on. Yes, yes and no. A pg flat footed during his opponent's turn can’t do AoO but threaten (see snake swiftness above) PS. Black edit your damn post "out-of-my-turn-etc": it's too long, please
Marcus Majarra 06-16-07, 09:30 AM	Unfortunately the PHB doesn't negate what the PHB II states. Actually, it does on account of the PHBII contradicting the PHB on a combat rule. What if you are flat footed? Being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from making attacks as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity (PHB137). Since you're still capable of making melee attacks while flat-footed (as is the case with a balancing character, for example), you still threaten the area around you, if you meet the conditions stated above.
Leilond 06-16-07, 10:18 AM	I will try to clarify the "interpretation" gap that divide us from you Let's immagine you arrive in front of a private club door and the men on the door says you "If you cannot read, you cannot enter" Is there a "unique" interpretation here? No, you can interprete it in this two way 1) You have to be able to read right now, because in the club there's a big screen and it will appears written instruction on the screen and every member must be able to read With this interpratation if you "can" read but you forgot your glasses at home, you cannot enter because you "cannot read right now" 2) You have to be able to read as general ability, no matter if you cannot do it in this moment because you are injuried, you frogot your glasses or other. The club don't want illiterates Both the interpretation are corrects. The only way to know wich is the "intended" one is asking to the men on the door: I've to be able to read as a whole or I've to be able to read right now? If the answer is "right now", you must go home and take your glasses If the answer is "as general ability" you can simply show the club "pass" that you obtained yesterday and demostrate that you're able to read as general ability Two corret interpretation, but only one was in the owner intention I think that we're inside a problem like this We think that "can make an attack" means "as a general rule" and not "right now", while you think that it means "right now" (but you didn't justified by the RAW why if you have to attack right now, you threaten when you run out of AoO) But I know that this will be neverending, because the real goal of this discussion isn't to understand different views of the RAW and find the one that better fit our game style... the goal of this thread seems to be "demostrate my supremacy". P.S. Dedalo.... PM to you because they're bored by me? To you? That doesn't mean nothing for anyone on this forum? The funny things is that you probably belive that we belive you! P.S. for Kav and Black The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he changed his mind. Something like 15 people posted in this thread. Only Egres , Kav and Black, the same 3 people that told me that "no one in the world would never say something so stupid", wrote a single word that supports YOUR interpretation. I'm still waiting ONE single user to support your interpretation Can you admit at least that PHERAPS, and only PHERAPS, we understand the rule in the right way? Only as remote possibility
Kalvalastir 06-16-07, 01:35 PM	I think that we're inside a problem like this We think that "can make an attack" means "as a general rule" and not "right now", while you think that it means "right now" You are forgetting that combat in D&D is based on turns. I would believe you if combat was simultaneous, but it's not. Anyway, following your point of view to the end we find that: - you give flanking bonus at the start of a combat, even if your turn is to come and you are not yet ready for the battle - you give flanking bonus when blinded and deafened (:confused:) - you give flanking bonus against an invisible foe (:eek:) - you give flanking bonus when trying to balancing on a slippery surface and are not used to (i.e. less than 5 ranks in Balance) - you give flanking bonus when your only concern is to defend yourself (i.e. performing a Total Defense Action) Enough? I think these concequences are not coherent with "common sense"... (especially the two about blindness and invisibility, that are completely absurd). What do you think?
Blackstorm_SK 06-16-07, 10:41 PM	You can’t do AoO if you don’t threat. Why do you repeat yourself? Sorry, but why you're continue to reply can't when someone says can? Originally Posted by thondar I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. Suuure. So for you there’s flavour test in a definition…. From what you can deduce that? Egres don't says that's flavor text. Unarmed say I can’t do AoO because I don’t threat. Snake's swiftness give or no an AoO? No. Why? Because it don’t remove the don’t threat condition. So Snake's swiftness don’t give threat. Now I’m flat footed (first round) but I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. But if you're flat-footed you can't make AoOs. Blindness give Total concealment to my enemy, so I can’t do AoO. But I threaten (if I know in which squares you are). It’s logic. I’m a danger for you. Funny. You're blinded (that is, you can't see me, you don't have idea from where I will strike, you must attack in a random square) and you're a threat for me? Be serious. You know the answer. out-of-my-turn-that-prevent-me-from-making-attacks-but-that-you-must-ignore- because-even-when-it-is-not-your-action I think you don't get the point. Not’s a problem. Maybe PHB II clarify PHB. Maybe it's wrong. Neither your faqs are a problem. Maybe they clarifies PHB. Maybe they're wrong. Yes, yes and no. A pg flat footed during his opponent's turn can’t do AoO but threaten (see snake swiftness above) Yeah. So I must worry about someone that has no way to act against me? Highly inconsistent. PS. Black edit your damn post "out-of-my-turn-etc": it's too long, please Oh, I know it's too long. P.S. for Kav and Black The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he changed his mind. Something like 15 people posted in this thread. Only Egres , Kav and Black, the same 3 people that told me that "no one in the world would never say something so stupid", wrote a single word that supports YOUR interpretation. I'm still waiting ONE single user to support your interpretation Can you admit at least that PHERAPS, and only PHERAPS, we understand the rule in the right way? Only as remote possibility No, cause we're draw. The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he don't changed his mind. They simply avoid this topic after the first. You can't state that they're agree with you only because they don't post more. As we cannot say that they've changed their mind. Remember? In the italian forum I've changed idea, two, maybe three times. Maybe they're reding this topic, and they changed their mind. Maybe not. You can't use they for your big numbers theory. Regarding the possibility that we may be wrong... yeah. It's possible. We're humans. But I don't think we're wrong. So, what's matter if I admit it or not? P.S. Dedalo.... PM to you because they're bored by me? To you? That doesn't mean nothing for anyone on this forum? The funny things is that you probably belive that we belive you! I think that you can avoid from saying that he's a liar. You're free to think what you want, but don't speak for the others. Speak for you. That "we" as big mass is not an entity to wich I want to reply.
Marcus Majarra 06-16-07, 10:44 PM	It's not completely absurd. The flanking bonuses aren't a result of being more competent in dealing against an opponent. They are the result of the opponent dividing his attention between two opposite directions, thus making it easier for you and your ally to attack him. That's not to say that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable for an opponent to deliberately ignore a flanker in order to concentrate his attention on another, as suggested by the Rules of the Game articles. I find this kind of ruling to be appropriate. In any case, let me show you how your examples are coherent with common sense: 1) Flanking at the start of combat: usually, characters will not be armed at the start of combat, making it difficult for them to threaten opponents, much less likely that flanking situations occur at this point. If the characters are armed however, anything goes. This is evidenced by the presence of feats like Combat Reflexes, which allow an attacker to make AoOs while flat-footed. The defender doesn't know how good his attacker's reflexes are. The default is thus that the defender has to focus at least part of his attention on the possible attacker. If two such attackers are in a position where they could flank, it's only reasonable to allow them their flanking bonuses, since the defender has to assume they're in a position to attack him. 2) Even if you're blind and deaf, you've still got three other senses, two of which can actually help in combat: touch and smell. If you're armed and can attack into a square, you very much threaten an opponent in that square, even if you can perceive it through common senses. This is done by virtue that, on your turn, you're capable of attacking into that square. As such, the opponent has to invest some of his attention into defending himself from you. As he divides his attention, he makes it easier for opponents to attack him from an opposite side. 3) Invisibility falls in the same category as blindness and deafness. It's not because you're invisible that you have to divide your attention any less between two opponents on opposite sides of you. 4) Flanking while balancing falls under the same purview as flanking while flat-footed in general. The defender isn't aware of how good his opponents' combat reflexes are, so he has to invest his attention into them, and thus provide flanking bonuses. 5) Just because you're focusing on defending yourself doesn't make you any less capable of attacking the opponent. You can still reach into his square and attack him, should the possibility to do so arise. Examples of this include a choker using total defense with one standard action, and attacking with his other standard action, as well as a character benefitting from a snake's swiftness spell while using total defense. Since you can still prove threatening to an opponent despite appearances, that opponent has to invest his attention on you. The problem with conceiving these as out of common sense is because you're assuming the defender will not be interested in disregarding opponents in conditions that usually do not allow them to be effectively threatening. If you feel it's still not sufficient, I would recommend to use the following rule suggested in the Rules of the Game articles: A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks: You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker. If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity. If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity. You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.) Designer's Notes: This rule gives certain creatures the option to ignore flankers when they don't pose any real danger to them. Lycanthropes facing foes that aren't armed with silver weapons, as well as characters with very high Armor Classes facing much weaker foes, can soften the effects of being surrounded. Many other creatures can use the rule to limit sneak attacks against them, but at the risk of extra attacks of opportunity from other foes. This rule also means that you often cannot provide a flanking bonus to your allies if you're out of attacks of opportunity (though foes may have a hard time determining exactly when that situation occurs).
PenderGrass 06-17-07, 03:32 AM	1) Flanking at the start of combat: usually, characters will not be armed at the start of combat, making it difficult for them to threaten opponents, much less likely that flanking situations occur at this point. If the characters are armed however, anything goes. This is evidenced by the presence of feats like Combat Reflexes, which allow an attacker to make AoOs while flat-footed. The defender doesn't know how good his attacker's reflexes are. The default is thus that the defender has to focus at least part of his attention on the possible attacker.* If two such attackers are in a position where they could flank, it's only reasonable to allow them their flanking bonuses, since the defender has to assume they're in a position to attack him. *Your main problem with making an assertion like this is how does a defender know when to "feel" threatened and when not to? If I have a high-level monk that is dressed identically to his twin brother, the town non-combatant glass-blower, how does the defender know which one to feel threatened by? Especially if neither twin brother has been able to have their first combat round. No. Threatening seems to be more than just a perception of threat, there has to be an active part on the person causing the threat (i.e., stabbing at, slashing at, taking jabs at the target, etc.). Therefore it is easy to see a person that has a sword in their hand, not having joined combat just yet (i.e., their initiative count has not been reached), standing in an non-threatening posture and allowing for people to pass him by with nary a thought. Happens all the time in the movies. And I would liken D&D combat more towards cinematic combat than anything real I have seen or heard about. Add in an extra boon for those with Combat Reflexes and it all seems quite simple. Or not. Either way. :dragon: ****
Kalvalastir 06-17-07, 01:13 PM	2) Even if you're blind and deaf, you've still got three other senses, two of which can actually help in combat: touch and smell. If you're armed and can attack into a square, you very much threaten an opponent in that square, even if you can perceive it through common senses. This is done by virtue that, on your turn, you're capable of attacking into that square. As such, the opponent has to invest some of his attention into defending himself from you. As he divides his attention, he makes it easier for opponents to attack him from an opposite side. This sounds to me like a Saint Seyia japanese cartoon... 3 senses left? Taste, smell and touch? And what about the 6th sense? :rofl: C'mon, a blind character is not a real threat: he looks nowhere and waves his weapons to the air. When his turn comes he can try to attack me, but I've nothing to be concerned about when it's MY turn. 3) Invisibility falls in the same category as blindness and deafness. It's not because you're invisible that you have to divide your attention any less between two opponents on opposite sides of you. The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. While the others are reasonable, these very two points are completely absurd.
thondar 06-17-07, 02:02 PM	You can’t do AoO if you don’t threat. why you're continue to reply can't when someone says can? Because PHB say so (and some faqs). I have a question for you.. 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. In your interpretation there’s a difference between 1 and 2? The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. Threaten only in my turn is practically useless. I can’t think that. The second phrase must have another sense. Funny. You're blinded (that is, you can't see me, you don't have idea from where I will strike, you must attack in a random square) and you're a threat for me? Be serious. I said I know where you are. If I don’t know where you are I can’t attack you, so I don’t threat. It’s more dangerous a 20° level blind fighter or a 1° level no-blind fighter? The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he don't changed his mind. This is Funny! :D Not to mention that you can't imagine how many PM I have received of people bored of your stubborness, asking me why I waste my time with you. And you can't imagine how many PM I have received from Hots baby (Maybe they like faq)!! :cheer: I'm talking seriously, you should appreciate the fact that I treat you with respect, instead of simply ignoring you like they do. If you want you can ignore this thread but blackstorm will say you changed your mind. Therefore it is easy to see a person that has a sword in their hand, not having joined combat just yet (i.e., their initiative count has not been reached), standing in an non-threatening posture and allowing for people to pass him by with nary a thought. Maybe he pretend to be non-threatening. And the turns are thinked concurrents. You can ignore it only if you are using the optional rule. The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. Unfortunately so work for your interpretation too. I Add a faq to the collection. If a creature has 0 reach, it must enter an enemy’s square to attack that enemy, correct? If the creature enters the enemy’s square, does it now threaten the enemy? Is it possible for the creature to flank the enemy? If so, where would an ally need to be positioned to flank the enemy? If you’re armed and you’re in a position to make a melee attack against a foe, you threaten that foe (see Threatened Squares under the Attacks of Opportunity section in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). To be armed you must wield a weapon or have natural weaponry. If your reach is 0, you can threaten foes in the same square with you only. eight It say you threat if you are armed and in position.
Marcus Majarra 06-17-07, 04:58 PM	Your main problem with making an assertion like this is how does a defender know when to "feel" threatened and when not to? If I have a high-level monk that is dressed identically to his twin brother, the town non-combatant glass-blower, how does the defender know which one to feel threatened by? Especially if neither twin brother has been able to have their first combat round. No. Threatening seems to be more than just a perception of threat, there has to be an active part on the person causing the threat (i.e., stabbing at, slashing at, taking jabs at the target, etc.). Therefore it is easy to see a person that has a sword in their hand, not having joined combat just yet (i.e., their initiative count has not been reached), standing in an non-threatening posture and allowing for people to pass him by with nary a thought. Just how easy is it to see this? A person with a weapon in hand before their first initiative count arrives could very well delay his action to maintain the appearance of being unready. Just because you expect someone to be unready or unthreatening doesn't guarantee that the person is either unready or unthreatening. You see someone with a weapon in hand. You're guessing he's not yet ready to fight (by his posture), but the weapon is still there. Odds are he won't be ready to attack, but should he be ready to do so (despite appearances), you'd be taking a chance in assuming he's not ready and attempting a risky action. This is how threat is defined. He's in a position where he could attack you. After all, he's armed and within reach. How sure can you be about him not being a threat? The thing is: you can't. As such, the threat is real, if not likely. You can choose to ignore an opponent, judging it unlikely to attack you, but it doesn't make the opponent any less a threat. This sounds to me like a Saint Seyia japanese cartoon... 3 senses left? Taste, smell and touch? And what about the 6th sense? C'mon, a blind character is not a real threat: he looks nowhere and waves his weapons to the air. When his turn comes he can try to attack me, but I've nothing to be concerned about when it's MY turn. That's the usual assumption. You've got no guarantee that your opponent is actually blind or deaf. Or that he's no threat to you except when he's acting. The facts remain the same: he's armed and within reach to attack you with his weapon. He's not in a position where he is unable to attack you, so the threat is real, if not likely. In any case, blind characters aren't a threat... on their own. It's when they've got someone working with them. The thing is: part of your attention goes to the blind guy within attacking reach. While the blind character can't make the best out of his ability to threaten you, such is not the case for his allies. If you feel this lacks in realism, then I recommend you use the unofficial rule posted above. It actually illustrates the ability for a creature to ignore opponents. Threat is not something you can ignore, because you're not the one controlling the threat. Only the one wielding the weapon controls the threat. The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. You're looking at things from the wrong angle. Even if you're invisible, having someone nearby with a weapon makes that individual a threat to you. For all you know, that individual could be able to see you (or even just discern your location through tremorsense or blindsense or scent). Assuming he can't perceive you is a risk you take. In no way can you eliminate that character's ability to attack you, which makes his threat very real. Threat is a matter of an attacker being able to attack you, not about actually attacking you. If he's able to attack you, he's a threat. Rules applying to attacks of opportunity don't extend to attacking in general unless otherwise stated. If anything, rules that inhibit attacks of opportunity serve as incentive to more safely disregard threat. The threat is still real.
Blackstorm_SK 06-17-07, 05:20 PM	Because PHB say so (and some faqs). As usual: you don't get the point. Threaten only in my turn is practically useless. I can’t think that. The second phrase must have another sense. Yeah, just why you couldn't think that, it must be as you say. You don't get the point. Again. So, let's see, why threaten in your turn is useless? I said I know where you are. If I don’t know where you are I can’t attack you, so I don’t threat. How can you know where I am, if you can't see me? Be serious. It's not a Saint-Seya game. It’s more dangerous a 20° level blind fighter or a 1° level no-blind fighter? Want try? The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he don't changed his mind. This is Funny! :D Oh, yeah. I think you must read a lot better my posts. It was a reply to Leilond: The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he changed his mind. Something like 15 people posted in this thread. So, he's funny, too? Or you want to apply (as usual) two different evaluations depending on who has posted? Be serious. And you can't imagine how many PM I have received from Hots baby (Maybe they like faq)!! :cheer: Disgusting. If you want you can ignore this thread but blackstorm will say you changed your mind. Oh, my. Quoting Egres: tell me more about your honesty. Maybe he pretend to be non-threatening. And the turns are thinked concurrents. You can ignore it only if you are using the optional rule. The same optional rule that you used for sustain your statement in the italian forum. Don't get, uh? BtW: I can't see in the statement you've quoted, a reference to the optionale rule. So no point. The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. Unfortunately so work for your interpretation too. So? You don't threat, in fact. With my interpretation.
Blackstorm_SK 06-17-07, 07:20 PM	Just how easy is it to see this? A person with a weapon in hand before their first initiative count arrives could very well delay his action to maintain the appearance of being unready. Just because you expect someone to be unready or unthreatening doesn't guarantee that the person is either unready or unthreatening. Well, I think that the difference betwen "surprised" and "waiting" status is noticeable. You see someone with a weapon in hand. You're guessing he's not yet ready to fight (by his posture), but the weapon is still there. Odds are he won't be ready to attack, but should he be ready to do so (despite appearances), you'd be taking a chance in assuming he's not ready and attempting a risky action. This is how threat is defined. He's in a position where he could attack you. After all, he's armed and within reach. How sure can you be about him not being a threat? Really, I think that if you're surprised, you don't have a threatening posture. The thing is: you can't. As such, the threat is real, if not likely. You can choose to ignore an opponent, judging it unlikely to attack you, but it doesn't make the opponent any less a threat. Yeah. You're right. But, what if it's not his turn and he cannot make AoO (cover, blinded, or whatever you want)? How can he threaten, if he cannot attack anyway? That's the usual assumption. You've got no guarantee that your opponent is actually blind or deaf. Or that he's no threat to you except when he's acting. The facts remain the same: he's armed and within reach to attack you with his weapon. He's not in a position where he is unable to attack you, so the threat is real, if not likely. If you're invisible, he is blinded against you. And you know it. Btw, how can you, blinded, not knowing from where I'll strike, not knowing where I'll be next turn, be a threat? It means by chance, that if I'm invisible, and I shoot on you with a bow, you have an AoO? Even if you are blinded against me? Only the one wielding the weapon controls the threat. Hmm.. I'm not sure of it. If you're a human, and I'm a drow, and we are in a really dark room, no light at all, I know, and really know that you can see me. And you're no longer a menace. You're looking at things from the wrong angle. Even if you're invisible, having someone nearby with a weapon makes that individual a threat to you. For all you know, that individual could be able to see you (or even just discern your location through tremorsense or blindsense or scent). Assuming he can't perceive you is a risk you take. In no way can you eliminate that character's ability to attack you, which makes his threat very real. Ok. Greater invisibility. Combat: my turn: strike, move. Your turn: can you tell where am I? Threat is a matter of an attacker being able to attack you, not about actually attacking you. If he's able to attack you, he's a threat. Rules applying to attacks of opportunity don't extend to attacking in general unless otherwise stated. If anything, rules that inhibit attacks of opportunity serve as incentive to more safely disregard threat. The threat is still real. Never talked of extension of rules. You're a threat in so far as you're able to attack. If you're not able to attack (and I mean: reg attacks and AoO), you're no longer threaten. So, if you're not in your turn, you can't make a reg attack, and if I'm invisible, you can't make AoO. Why I should feel threatened by you?
thondar 06-17-07, 08:01 PM	So, let's see, why threaten in your turn is useless? Threat’s useful for AoO and flanking. In your turn rarely you flank or do AoO. You don’t need threat for regular attack (attack give threat no viceversa. So say PHB). The PHB speak about AoO related to your enemy’s turn so it don’t make sense be afraid that you comprehend you can do AoO only in your turn. How can you know where I am, if you can't see me? Another silly question… Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. Yes? Then you can attack me. Then you are a threat. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. etc The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he changed his mind. Something like 15 people posted in this thread. The fact that someone posted his opinion and didn't posted anymore, doesn't mean he don't changed his mind. […] So, he's funny, too? Or you want to apply (as usual) two different evaluations depending on who has posted? Be serious. Are you joking? I post saying I agree with leilond, then I don’t post anymore. You think I changed my mind if I don’t post to end of topic? Therefore it is easy to see a person that has a sword in their hand, not having joined combat just yet (i.e., their initiative count has not been reached), standing in an non-threatening posture and allowing for people to pass him by with nary a thought. Maybe he pretend to be non-threatening. And the turns are thinked concurrents. You can ignore it only if you are using the optional rule. BtW: I can't see in the statement you've quoted, a reference to the optionale rule. So no point. There’s a optionale rule (posted some post ago by marcus) for ignore a flanking enemy. You use it? Yes? Then you can ignore a pg you think is flat footed No? then you can’t ignore it The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. Unfortunately so work for your interpretation too. So? You don't threat, in fact. With my interpretation. Kalvalastir speak about a flanking creature invisible. He can attack (regular and AoO), so threat and give flanking bonus in your interpretation too. If you're invisible, he is blinded against you. And you know it. Btw, how can you, blinded, not knowing from where I'll strike, not knowing where I'll be next turn, be a threat? If this round I know where you are I threat. Next round if I will know where you’ll be I’ll threat. Anyway in his turn he flank according to your interpretation too (he can do regular attack). It means by chance, that if I'm invisible, and I shoot on you with a bow, you have an AoO? Even if you are blinded against me? No. You have total concealment, so I can’t do AoO. Ok. Greater invisibility. Combat: my turn: strike, move. Your turn: can you tell where am I? Yes (see above)
Blackstorm_SK 06-17-07, 08:31 PM	Threat’s useful for AoO and flanking. In your turn rarely you flank or do AoO. You don’t need threat for regular attack (attack give threat no viceversa. So say PHB). The PHB speak about AoO related to your enemy’s turn so it don’t make sense be afraid that you comprehend you can do AoO only in your turn. So it doesn't matter if you threaten on your turn? Another silly question… Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. Yes? Then you can attack me. Then you are a threat. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. etc [...] If this round I know where you are I threat. Next round if I will know where you’ll be I’ll threat. I see. You don't get the point. A creature with scent is not blinded against you. ------ --r--- --g--- ------ ------ You are g, a human warrior. I'm r, a human rogue. In this table, r has Greater Invisibility. Initiative to r. He strikes, then move. G turn: Hey, g, place a r where I am. ------ ------ --g--- ------ ------ Get the point? How can you threaten? Are you joking? I post saying I agree with leilond, then I don’t post anymore. You think I changed my mind if I don’t post to end of topic? I see. You continue to read what you want. If you can't understand the sense of my reply to leilond, don't say more. There’s a optionale rule (posted some post ago by marcus) for ignore a flanking enemy. You use it? Yes? Then you can ignore a pg you think is flat footed No? then you can’t ignore it Yeah. You don't get the point. Let's play: bold where in this quote Pendergrass uses the optional rule (btw, I don't need someone to explain me that rule, since I was the one that explained it in the italian forum. Just as note. I know and understand that hr. Really.) Therefore it is easy to see a person that has a sword in their hand, not having joined combat just yet (i.e., their initiative count has not been reached), standing in an non-threatening posture and allowing for people to pass him by with nary a thought. Now, please, bold the reference to hr.
pmurray@bigpond.com 06-17-07, 10:17 PM	Flat-footed doesn't just mean that you cannot make attacks of opportunities - it means you cannot attack, at all. A flat-footed person can make an attack that round when it is their turn to do so. If you are standing next to a flat-footed opponent, then they can attack you on their turn, so clearly they threaten an attack before the attack takes place.
Marcus Majarra 06-17-07, 10:18 PM	Well, I think that the difference betwen "surprised" and "waiting" status is noticeable. And, on this, I wholeheartedly agree. Or at least, as long as the concept of "surprised" applies only to surprise rounds. As it is, only characters who are aware can act during a surprise round. If they're not aware, they can't act. And if they can't act, they can't attack. It just needs to be clear that unless there's a surprise round, combattants will not actually be surprised. Unready maybe, but not surprised. Yeah. You're right. But, what if it's not his turn and he cannot make AoO (cover, blinded, or whatever you want)? How can he threaten, if he cannot attack anyway? That's the thing: not being able to make AoOs doesn't equate to not being able to attack. The opponent threatens on account of having a weapon in hand and being close enough to attack you. He is a threat to you because attacking you is possible. To be honest, you don't know whether an opponent can perform an AoO or not. There are many ways to circumvent restrictions that would otherwise keep someone from using AoOs. For example, a character using total defense is not normally allowed AoOs. From the point of view of someone defending against someone using total defense, there's very little genuine threat from such a character. Nonetheless, if that character had the Active Shield Defense feat, he'd be in a position to actually make those AoOs. The thing is: you have no way of knowing the opponent has that feat. The only thing you know is that this character is armed, within reach, and in no condition that actually prevents him from making an attack (such as being nauseated, stunned, or paralyzed). This is why he threatens. If you're invisible, he is blinded against you. And you know it. Btw, how can you, blinded, not knowing from where I'll strike, not knowing where I'll be next turn, be a threat? It means by chance, that if I'm invisible, and I shoot on you with a bow, you have an AoO? Even if you are blinded against me? I'm a threat because I have a weapon and I'm able to attack you. However because you have total concealment relative to me, I cannot make AoOs against you (see concealment rules), which further mitigates the extent of my threat. I still threaten you because I can attack you. By virtue of this, you have to pay some attention to me. Hmm.. I'm not sure of it. If you're a human, and I'm a drow, and we are in a really dark room, no light at all, I know, and really know that you can see me. And you're no longer a menace. If I'm next to you and armed, can I attack you? If so, then I am a threat, in the way it's defined in the RAW. I threaten your square if you're in one of my threatened squares. How much of a genuine menace I can be is debatable, since I can't make AoOs against you. In any case, it's not knowledge of an opponent's ability to threaten that makes the opponent threatening. It's the fact that the opponent can attack you that creates the threat. Consider for example, that you're the human in the example you provided. You cannot see the drow, and if he's good enough, you might not even hear him. How can he be a threat to you if you don't know that something is threatening to you? If you haven't even noticed the drow yet, you're not even expecting to be threatened. And yet, the drow threatens you, whether you realize it or not. Why? Because the drow is armed and within reach. Even if you do not perceive something as a threat, it can still be threatening to you. If you're not able to attack (and I mean: reg attacks and AoO), you're no longer threaten. So, if you're not in your turn, you can't make a reg attack, and if I'm invisible, you can't make AoO. Why I should feel threatened by you? How do you know I can't make AoOs? Or that I can't see you despite being invisible? You might wager that I'm not a real threat to you and ignore me. This is reflected by the idea that you take actions that would normally be risky while around me. The thing is: whether you consider me threatening or not doesn't change the fact that, by the rules, I do threaten you. I am able to attack you (even if I can't make AoOs), and you're within reach. Whether you're ready to gamble on this is up to you, but conditions are favorable to you.
Nom 06-17-07, 10:31 PM	A flat-footed person can make an attack that round when it is their turn to do so. If you are standing next to a flat-footed opponent, then they can attack you on their turn, so clearly they threaten an attack before the attack takes place.Without commenting on the bigger debate, this argument is clearly spurious. When their turn rolls around they cease being flat-footed, so they are not in the same state as they are now. It's like a stunned character arguing that "the stun will have worn off by my next turn, so I shouldn't be treated as if I'm stunned now".
Marcus Majarra 06-17-07, 11:20 PM	Without commenting on the bigger debate, this argument is clearly spurious. When their turn rolls around they cease being flat-footed, so they are not in the same state as they are now. It's like a stunned character arguing that "the stun will have worn off by my next turn, so I shouldn't be treated as if I'm stunned now". This is under the assumption that being flat-footed goes away when a character's turn comes up (which is not the case, for example, when balancing). I believe he was simply referring to the fact that you threaten any square you can make a melee attack into, even when it's not your turn. The intent, I believe, is to determine threat by your ability to attack during your turn, and then apply it outside your turn.
Egres 06-18-07, 03:53 AM	Threaten only in my turn is practically useless. I can’t think that. The second phrase must have another sense. Death without afterlife makes my life practically senseless. Something must be beyond life. You can’t do AoO if you don’t threat. Why do you repeat yourself? Because you don't understand. Repetita iuvant. Read the Convention of Bruxelles. two if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO This doesn't support your position, since I say that too. The problem is that you don't understand that the opposite too is true when AoOs are you only attack left. if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Read above. And read the Convention of Bruxelles. four Threat depend on reach If it depends on reach, why stunned creatures don't threat? Not to mention, why paralyzed creatures don't threat? It says anywhere they don't threat. Rule based answer this time, please. five Threat depend on reach Read above. Six Threat depend on reach but don’t depend on AoO Actually that FAQ refers to a character not provoking AoOs. Read the rules, please. seven if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Deja vu. Suuure. So for you there’s flavour test in a definition…. Flavour text? Actually, that's interpretation, something I think you never study when graduating. Now I’m flat footed (first round) but I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. And...why? Because you say so? lol Blindness give Total concealment to my enemy, so I can’t do AoO. But I threaten (if I know in which squares you are). It’s logic. I’m a danger for you. So dangerous that you can't attack me while casting. 3) Conditions that prevent you from making attacks prevent you from threatening. I agree Agreed. Not’s a problem. Maybe PHB II clarify PHB. Maybe it's wrong. Or maybe you are wrong and the books are right. A pg flat footed during his opponent's turn can’t do AoO but threaten (see snake swiftness above) So you threaten no matter if I cast SS on you? lol Actually, it does on account of the PHBII contradicting the PHB on a combat rule. Only by your intrepretation, that arbitrarily says that if you can't make attacks at all you don't threaten, but when you can't make attacks at all during your opponent's turn you do threaten. Meh... Being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from making attacks as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity (PHB137). Since you're still capable of making melee attacks while flat-footed (as is the case with a balancing character, for example), you still threaten the area around you, if you meet the conditions stated above. Right. But what about when it's your opponent's turn? Dedalo.... PM to you because they're bored by me? To you? That doesn't mean nothing for anyone on this forum? The funny things is that you probably belive that we belive you! If you like I can ask them the permission to cite their name, here or in a PM for you. If you browse the Italian boards you'll easily see that I'm considered *a bit* more knowledgeable than you. This shouldn't surprise you at all. Can you admit at least that PHERAPS, and only PHERAPS, we understand the rule in the right way? Only as remote possibility Do you remember the "9 to 1" and the "you must do something better to make me admit that the FAQ can be wrong"? And you can't imagine how many PM I have received from Hots baby (Maybe they like faq)!! Here is the other one that changed his mind after reading my post, but now is acting like a wild child. ;) Threat is a matter of an attacker being able to attack you, not about actually attacking you. Yeah. Maybe he'll be able to attack me later, in the future. So, I must start worrying now, eh? Threat’s useful for AoO and flanking. In your turn rarely you flank or do AoO. Exactly from when "rarely" means "never"? Another silly question… Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. What about if I don't know where you are, but I attack the right square nonetheless? And what about if I'll know where you are during my turn? "Even when it's not your action". I post saying I agree with leilond, then I don’t post anymore. You think I changed my mind if I don’t post to end of topic? In the rules forum do you really expect people coming and saying they changed their mind without further contributing to the thread? If this round I know where you are I threat. Next round if I will know where you’ll be I’ll threat. And what about if I'll know where you are during my turn? "Even when it's not your action". No. You have total concealment, so I can’t do AoO. And what if you know where I am? Ok. Greater invisibility. Combat: my turn: strike, move. Your turn: can you tell where am I? Yes (see above) Read the rules carefully, please. If you know the rules so poorly it's not a surprise you are so wrong. Black asked if you know where your opponent is if he strikes at you and then moves. You answered "yes", pointing your previous quote about invisible attackers. Unfortunately the text also says: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). Not knowing the rules and saying your interpretation is right is...meh.
Psion_3 06-18-07, 03:54 AM	The intent, I believe, is to determine threat by your ability to attack during your turn, and then apply it outside your turn. Really? Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition?
Kalvalastir 06-18-07, 04:07 AM	Kalvalastir speak about a flanking creature invisible. He can attack (regular and AoO), so threat and give flanking bonus in your interpretation too. What are you talking about? Total Concealment negates AoOs. I suggest you to read the rules before talking. :D You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Egres 06-18-07, 07:25 AM	Kalvalastir speak about a flanking creature invisible. He can attack (regular and AoO), so threat and give flanking bonus in your interpretation too. The RotG articles say you are wrong: You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. Are you still sure you can cite FAQ and RotG to support your view?
thondar 06-18-07, 10:01 AM	So it doesn't matter if you threaten on your turn? Silly question. We aren’t speaking in general. Read again. Get the point? How can you threaten? You don’t get the point Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. Yes? Then you can attack me. Then you are a threat. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. I highlight the point. You don't get the point. Let's play: bold where in this quote Pendergrass uses the optional rule Pendergrass don’t uses the optional rule, so he can’t ignore a flat footed pg. You get the point? Threaten only in my turn is practically useless. I can’t think that. The second phrase must have another sense. Death without afterlife makes my life practically senseless. Something must be beyond life. You know it’s different? You know i know you know it’s different? You know all know (blackstorm too) you know it’s different? So why do you make this reply? Threat it’s a rules you write to say something to someone. You don’t put in a rule a no-meaning phrase. If [threat] depends on reach, why stunned creatures don't threat? You already know the answer A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions [so can’t attack]. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Stunned’s a condition that expressly remove the threat. Deja vu. Ever true Now I’m flat footed (first round) but I’m armed. I get a Snake's swiftness. I sunder. My attack provoke AoO from my enemy because I sunder. My enemy sunder too my weapon. I have a aoO? yes. Why? Because I threaten. But Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat! => I threat by myself because I’m armed and in reach. And...why? Because you say so? Lol Ok. Here I’m wrong. You can’t do AoO because a flat footed creature can’t do AoO. Anyway Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat. Blindness give Total concealment to my enemy, so I can’t do AoO. But I threaten (if I know in which squares you are). It’s logic. I’m a danger for you.So dangerous that you can't attack me while casting. You are a 1°level fighter in a 5’ x 10’ room. No exits. I’m a 20° level blind fighter in the same room. Same equipment. Who win? A pg flat footed during his opponent's turn can’t do AoO but threaten (see snake swiftness above) So you threaten no matter if I cast SS on you? Yes. Only by your intrepretation, that arbitrarily says that if you can't make attacks at all * you don't threaten, but when you can't make attacks at all** during your opponent's turn you do threaten. Do you like play with words? *at all: in all the round ** at all: out of your turn Being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from making attacks as a whole. It only prevents you from making attacks of opportunity (PHB137). Since you're still capable of making melee attacks while flat-footed (as is the case with a balancing character, for example), you still threaten the area around you, if you meet the conditions stated above. Right. But what about when it's your opponent's turn? You already know the answer You threaten all squares (into which you can make a melee attack) even when it is not your action. Here is the other one that changed his mind after reading my post We can change our mind when you say something right. No problem in that. We attend to forum for that, no for say: If you browse the Italian boards you'll easily see that I'm considered *a bit* more knowledgeable than you. Anyway I know you are knowledgeable (no irony). Be to your-own level. Don’t whine about it. Exactly from when "rarely" means "never"? It’s clear from PHB that AoO don’t be so rare. what about if I'll know where you are during my turn? "Even when it's not your action". Changed condition. In the rules forum do you really expect people coming and saying they changed their mind without further contributing to the thread? Yes. They can say the reason. Do you really expect people have changed their mind when they don’t post anymore? No. You have total concealment, so I can’t do AoO. And what if you know where I am? you have total concealment anyway, so I can’t do AoO (but I threat). Black asked if you know where your opponent is if he strikes at you and then moves. You answered "yes", pointing your previous quote about invisible attackers. Unfortunately the text also says: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). Read the rules (and my post) carefully, please. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. Etc i.e: you can do a spot check (+20 DC). Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? Yes. Because threat’s a prerequisite for AoO. Kalvalastir speak about a flanking creature invisible. He can attack (regular and AoO), so threat and give flanking bonus in your interpretation too.What are you talking about? Total Concealment negates AoOs. I suggest you to read the rules before talking. I suggest you to read your post before talking. The invisible creature is your ally and give flanking bonus to you in both interpretations (because he can attack in and out his turn). The RotG articles say you are wrong: You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. This RotG say we both are wrong. Indeed it add something to PHB. Are you still sure you can cite FAQ and RotG to support your view? Yes, more than ever.
Leilond 06-18-07, 10:20 AM	I try again to explain something Think about this You arrive at the door of an exclusive private club. The man at the door say you: "If you can read, you can enter this private club" Now there are two possibility 1) It is required that you "can read" right now. (for example because there's a screen inside the club with dinamic messages that must be read from people inside) In this situation, if you have a bad temporary injury that do not let you see enoght good to read for a while, you cannot enter. No matter if you have the "club pass" that demostrate without doubt that you are able to read. You cannot enter 2) It is required that you "can read" as general ability. (for example because the owner do not want illiterates in his club) In this situation, if you have a bad temporary injury that do not let you see enought good to read for a while, you can enter if you have the "club pass" that demostrate without doubt that you are able to read This is a clear demostration that a single phrase can be correctly interpreted in both ways, by the RAW... both are RAW. The only way to be SURE about it is asking the men at the door and he will tell you how it work Do not look for "strict relation" with our situation (the phrase is more ambiguos). I created this example only to show that PHERAPS, the rule isn't so "plain" as we would like and PHERAPS there's no way to know the real intention of the rulers, without directly asking to them, the WOTC I know that you think your interpretation is the right one So do we, obviously Why are we continuing to repeat the same things post after post. Same question, same answer, same reply to same reply... going to propose the same question after 10 post, only to start from the beginning again? Different users wrote their interpretation. If we have "new" questions for someone it can be usefull to write them down. If we want to write a question we've already wrote and recived answer, it isn't usefull, no matter if I didn't like the answer, it will not change because of that I did this mistake too, like a lot of us. I suggest to stop this game.
Kalvalastir 06-18-07, 10:59 AM	I suggest you to read your post before talking. The invisible creature is your ally and give flanking bonus to you in both interpretations (because he can attack in and out his turn). I never talked of an invisible ally... Anyway, following your point of view to the end we find that: - you give flanking bonus at the start of a combat, even if your turn is to come and you are not yet ready for the battle - you give flanking bonus when blinded and deafened (:confused:) - you give flanking bonus against an invisible foe (:eek:) - you give flanking bonus when trying to balancing on a slippery surface and are not used to (i.e. less than 5 ranks in Balance) - you give flanking bonus when your only concern is to defend yourself (i.e. performing a Total Defense Action)
thondar 06-18-07, 04:31 PM	I suggest you to read your post before talking. The invisible creature is your ally and give flanking bonus to you in both interpretations (because he can attack in and out his turn). I never talked of an invisible ally... Are you sure? Invisibility falls in the same category as blindness and deafness. It's not because you're invisible that you have to divide your attention any less between two opponents on opposite sides of you. The foe is INVISIBLE. You don't even know if he's truly there... you can't see him and it's obvious for him that you are looking around and not staring directly at him. Marcus speak about a invisible creature between two opponents and you reply that invisible is an opponent.
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 03:15 AM	Marcus speak about a invisible creature between two opponents and you reply that invisible is an opponent. Marcus misunderstood me as you did. I always talked of an invisible foe (since Total Concealment is relevant for determining AoOs, if it applies to the target).
Egres 06-19-07, 03:16 AM	You know it’s different? You know i know you know it’s different? You know all know (blackstorm too) you know it’s different? So why do you make this reply? Threat it’s a rules you write to say something to someone. You don’t put in a rule a no-meaning phrase. It's not different at all, and you didn't get the point. You wrote: Threaten only in my turn is practically useless. I can’t think that. The second phrase must have another sense. These sentences are your express your personal tase, but are meaningles in a rules debate. Dura lex, sed lex. You already know the answer Refresh my mind, since I believe you don't answer for a good reason... Stunned’s a condition that expressly remove the threat. Actually that's not true. Try again. Ok. Here I’m wrong. You can’t do AoO because a flat footed creature can’t do AoO. Anyway Snake's swiftness spell don’t give threat. Don't worry, you are often wrong. So, SS doesn't give you SS even if it allows you to attack when you were incapable of doing so before. Yessss.... You are a 1°level fighter in a 5’ x 10’ room. No exits. I’m a 20° level blind fighter in the same room. Same equipment. Who win? Nonsense reply. I asked what kind of threat are you when you can't attack me during my casting. Do you like play with words? *at all: in all the round ** at all: out of your turn Out of my turn I can't attack at all if I'm flat footed, barring spells and other things that create exceptions: deal with it. You already know the answer You threaten all squares (into which you can make a melee attack) even when it is not your action. Yes, because I have AoOs. AoOs negated? No threaten. Think about it: do you know what "threaten" means? Anyway I know you are knowledgeable (no irony). Be to your-own level. Don’t whine about it. I 'don't whine about it at all. I'm simply uderlining that I'm wasting my time with a guy that many people think is....well, let's move on. It’s clear from PHB that AoO don’t be so rare. So, ask yourself why you wrote: So, let's see, why threaten in your turn is useless? Threat’s useful for AoO and flanking. In your turn rarely you flank or do AoO. Useless is a term that you can use for something you can't use at all. If you say "rarely", don't say "useless". Can't you see that your post are made of "in my interpretation2, "I can't accept it", "I think that" with no rules? what about if I'll know where you are during my turn? "Even when it's not your action". Changed condition. And what about if I know where you are during my turn? Do you really expect people have changed their mind when they don’t post anymore? that'0s how people act here on these boards. Don't you think it's more reasonable? People don't like to admit they changed their mind, but don't ask me why. you have total concealment anyway, so I can’t do AoO (but I threat). You threat even if you are wrong, because you failed your check and believe that I'm there? Read the rules (and my post) carefully, please. Quote: Originally Posted by thondar How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. Etc i.e: you can do a spot check (+20 DC). Actually, you must be blind or something worse. Note the bolded part, and now read: Black asked if you know where your opponent is if he strikes at you and then moves. You answered "yes", pointing your previous quote about invisible attackers. Unfortunately the text also says: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). This RotG say we both are wrong. Indeed it add something to PHB. Quote: Originally Posted by egres Are you still sure you can cite FAQ and RotG to support your view? Yes, more than ever. Lol. So, you still want to cite something that sometimes says you are right, and sometimes says you are wrong. What astute of you.:D
Psion_3 06-19-07, 03:20 AM	Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? Yes. Because threat’s a prerequisite for AoO. Uhm? You have contradicted yourself here. You say that you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs, and this means that threat can't be considered a prerequisite, as Egres said, but they are two different elements that influence each other. If I'm wrong, why did you answer "yes" to this question? How can you know that you threaten?
Leilond 06-19-07, 04:13 AM	Uhm? You have contradicted yourself here. You say that you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs, and this means that threat can't be considered a prerequisite, as Egres said, but they are two different elements that influence each other. If I'm wrong, why did you answer "yes" to this question? How can you know that you threaten? You threaten unless something prevent you to make any form of attack. To make an AoO you must threaten. If something prevent you from threatening you cannot make AoO. For this reason if you say "you can make AoO" it REQUIRE that you threaten. I suppose that you PREVIOUS verified that I'm able to threaten, because if you didn't do that you cannot say "you can make AoO" So the answer pheraps is a bit wrong Question Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? Answer Yes, because only those conditions that prevent to attack as a "concept" as "type of action" prevent me from threatening (and those condition where is written that I do not threaten obviously), because the phrase "even if it is not your action" clarify the fact that "the impossibility to act because it is not your action isn't a problem" (our interpretation) I threaten if I cannot make regular attack I threaten if I cannot make AoO I do not threaten if I cannot attack as (using Egres words) "general ability" (ignoring the turns because the rule say they've to be ignored) For this reason I threaten my opponent if he has cover For this reason I do not threaten if I'm stunned For this reason I do not threaten when I'm nauseated For this reason I threaten when I'm flat-footed For this reason I do not threaten when I'm paralized For this reason I do not threaten while "disarmed" For this reason I do not threaten whil grappling Pratically I threaten in all situation except these: 1) I cannot act as a whole (paralized) 2) I cannot attack as a whole (nauseated) 3) I cannot threaten because so is written in a specific rule (grapple) No matter who is in turn to act. No matter if I can or cannot do AoO Talking about logic instead of "RAW" we can say You threaten because your enemy must keep attention to you. Because, as the manual say, the turns are "all at the same moment"... 10 people act all togheter within 6 seconds, that meanse everyone act something like half a second after each other and you cannot say that someone that will swing at you within half a second doesn't deserve you attention (distraction) or it isn't a threaten. P.S. All those are our interpretation, the way we think RAW say P.P.S. What do I want to mean with "As a whole"? Being unable to do something as a whole, for me, means that something prevent you to do that things in evety possible situation Being paralized prevent you from attacking. There's NO WAY to attack if you're paralized, nor in your turn, nor in opponent turn... NO WAY Being flat-footed instead do not prevent you from attacking. You can attack while balancing in your turn. Being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from attacking "as a whole", it prevent you only from attacking during opponet turn
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 04:33 AM	Because, as the manual say, the turns are "all at the same moment"... Where do they say this? :D I don't remember... :D (in fact as I can remember they don't say this AT ALL... :D combat in D&D is an astraction... and is NOT simultaneous... besides of whatever you may think) 10 people act all togheter within 6 seconds, that meanse everyone act something like half a second after each other and you cannot say that someone that will swing at you within half a second doesn't deserve you attention (distraction) or it isn't a threaten. So, for you is perfectly normal: - to give flanking bonus at the start of a combat, even if your turn is to come and you are not yet ready for the battle - to give flanking bonus when blinded and deafened - to give flanking bonus against an invisible foe - to give flanking bonus when trying to balancing on a slippery surface and are not used to (i.e. less than 5 ranks in Balance) - to give flanking bonus when your only concern is to defend yourself (i.e. performing a Total Defense Action) P.S. All those are our interpretation, the way we think RAW say Poor defense, to think is not to prove ;)
Blackstorm_SK 06-19-07, 04:54 AM	Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? Yes. Because threat’s a prerequisite for AoO.Uhm? You have contradicted yourself here. You say that you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs, and this means that threat can't be considered a prerequisite, as Egres said, but they are two different elements that influence each other. If I'm wrong, why did you answer "yes" to this question? How can you know that you threaten? Zugzwang rulez. Good move, Psion :) You threaten unless something prevent you to make any form of attack. To make an AoO you must threaten. If something prevent you from threatening you cannot make AoO. For this reason if you say "you can make AoO" it REQUIRE that you threaten. I suppose that you PREVIOUS verified that I'm able to threaten, because if you didn't do that you cannot say "you can make AoO" Soryy, but how can you suppose such things from this phrase: Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. It asks only if in a situation where you can make AoOs but not reg attacks you threaten. For your interpretation, it's an impossible situation. Answer Yes, because only those conditions that prevent to attack as a "concept" as "type of action" prevent me from threatening (and those condition where is written that I do not threaten obviously), because the phrase "even if it is not your action" clarify the fact that "the impossibility to act because it is not your action isn't a problem" (our interpretation) Wow. If I have the concept of attack I threaten? And if I have the concept of richness I'm rich? I threaten if I cannot make regular attack I threaten if I cannot make AoO So you're not a threat, but you threaten. I love logic. I do not threaten if I cannot attack as (using Egres words) "general ability" (ignoring the turns because the rule say they've to be ignored) Rules don't says that you must ignore the your turn/not your turn. For this reason I threaten my opponent if he has cover Yeah, a big threat. Specially when I'm casting. When I've a cover it's more dangerous cast defensively than cast normally, since in first case I risk to lose my spell. Logic, what a stranger. For this reason I do not threaten if I'm stunned If you have IUS feat, and you're stunned, if the threat depends from rich, as thondar says, you threat. For this reason I threaten when I'm flat-footed Yeah. A flat-footed charachter can't act normally, so he can act normally. Oh, my missed logic. Pratically I threaten in all situation except these: 1) I cannot act as a whole (paralized) 2) I cannot attack as a whole (nauseated) 3) I cannot threaten because so is written in a specific rule (grapple) No matter who is in turn to act. No matter if I can or cannot do AoO No matter if you're in combat, no matter if there are rules. That's only a game mechanic. Who cares the rules? Talking about logic instead of "RAW" we can say You threaten because your enemy must keep attention to you. Because, as the manual say, the turns are "all at the same moment"... 10 people act all togheter within 6 seconds, that meanse everyone act something like half a second after each other and you cannot say that someone that will swing at you within half a second doesn't deserve you attention (distraction) or it isn't a threaten. And where exactly the manual says that the turns come all at the same moment? SRD on hand, please. P.S. All those are our interpretation, the way we think RAW say There's some point where you and thondar aren't totally agree. How can it be a good position if you're contraddicting each other? P.P.S. What do I want to mean with "As a whole"? Being unable to do something as a whole, for me, means that something prevent you to do that things in evety possible situation Being paralized prevent you from attacking. There's NO WAY to attack if you're paralized, nor in your turn, nor in opponent turn... NO WAY Never said otherwise. Being flat-footed instead do not prevent you from attacking. You can attack while balancing in your turn. Being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from attacking "as a whole", it prevent you only from attacking during opponet turn Yeah, so you must balace yourself on an icy floor, but you're absolutely not distracted. Oh, logic, logic! Where you gone?
Leilond 06-19-07, 04:56 AM	Where do they say this? :D I don't remember... :D (in fact as I can remember they don't say this AT ALL... :D combat in D&D is an astraction... and is NOT simultaneous... besides of whatever you may think) So, for you is perfectly normal: - to give flanking bonus at the start of a combat, even if your turn is to come and you are not yet ready for the battle RAW Yes. The rules doesn't say a flat-footed character cannot attack, only cannot "make AdO" logic You're ready for battle while flat-footed. You're not "totally ready" If your dexterity is (for example) 10 and you're flat-footed, your AC is the same and it is better than the AC of a character with dexterity 9 not flat-footed. This means that you're actively moving and dodging swings... a bit worse than usual (in fact you can recive sneak attack) but far from paralized or stunned. A character with no special "against flat-footed" powers, has the SAME chance to hit you for the same damage while you're flat-footed or not. So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally - to give flanking bonus when blinded and deafened RAW Does the rules says that if you're blinded you cannot attack someone? If it say this you do not threaten. Logic Yes. You are swinging your weapon like a mad man, your enemy must pay attantion to you, must divide his attention between you and your ally. - to give flanking bonus against an invisible foe RAW Does the rule says that you cannot attack an invisible foe if he's invisible? If it say this you do not threaten Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally - to give flanking bonus when trying to balancing on a slippery surface and are not used to (i.e. less than 5 ranks in Balance) RAW Sure, nothing in the rules prevent you from attacking as a whole while balancing. Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally - to give flanking bonus when your only concern is to defend yourself (i.e. performing a Total Defense Action) RAW Does the rules says that you do not threten while using "total defense"? If it say this you do not threaten Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally Why did I answered with questions to your questions? Because there's the possibility that I didn't see a "specific rule". If the manual, in some places I missed, say that "you cannot attack in this situation" or say "you cannot act in this situation" or say "you do not threaten in this situation" then you do not threaten in that situation So, unless I missed some "specific rule" the anwer to all that question is YES. If I missed a "specific rule" than that rule will obviously work for that specific situation it asks only if in a situation where you can make AoOs but not reg attacks you threaten. For your interpretation, it's an impossible situation. Where did I say that? If you drink a potion you cannot do regular attack but you still threaten Wow. If I have the concept of attack I threaten? And if I have the concept of richness I'm rich? Sorry, don't understand, really I can attack while I do not threaten. In fact I can attack with "unarmed attack" but I still do not threaten any square if I've not the IUS or "natural attack" Threatening isn't a prerequisite for "attacking". Being able to attack as a whole and threatening a square are prerequisite for AoO So you're not a threat, but you threaten. I love logic. I threat because I'm a clear danger, because I'm moving, swinging and dodging Yeah, a big threat. Specially when I'm casting. When I've a cover it's more dangerous cast defensively than cast normally, since in first case I risk to lose my spell. Logic, what a stranger. Rules don't says that you must ignore the your turn/not your turn. i the way we I translate the rule yes, it say so I do not see any strange there. Cover give you some good bonus, like being able to cast without risking an AdO, not the ability to ignore a flanker If you have IUS feat, and you're stunned, if the threat depends from rich, as thondar says, you threat. And? Are you talking with me or with thondar? Yeah. A flat-footed charachter can't act normally can act normally. Oh, my missed logic. A flat-footed can't act normally, but can act. There's a difference between "I cannot act normally" and "I cannot act" No matter if you're in combat, no matter if there are rules. That's only a game mechanic. Who cares the rules? Have I to respond to this? Are you pointing out someghing particular? Nothin I said ingore the rules, or the game mechanics in any point And where exactly the manual says that the turns come all at the same moment? SRD on hand, please. SRD are secondary to the WOTC manuals. I've not the DMG with me now. I will write when I will be at home There's some point where you and thondar aren't totally agree. How can it be a good position if you're contraddicting each other? SOME point. Not the general working of the rule Yeah, so you must balace yourself on an icy floor, but you're absolutely not distracted. Oh, logic, logic! Where you gone? I didn't say that. You're a bit distracted, not enought to stop being a danger for your enemy. Please, stop writing that I said things I never said, it isn't nice I never said "you're ablsoutely not distracted while balancing", there's nothing in what I said that can in any way bring us to this conclusion. You simply added never said things to my mounth... not nice at all
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 06:10 AM	I still wonder how i'ts possible in your logic to consider a blind and deaf character a "threat" to you. Have you ever seen a real blind? Those with a dog as a guide? Now consider that real blind persons are accustomed to their condition. And now consider how threatening it would be a character that becomes blinded and deafened all of a sudden. You are trying to tell me that a blinded and deafened charachter waves his weapon around all the time, but you know that this is not true in D&D combat, because it works on turns, and on the other's turn a blinded and deafened character cannot make AoO, so he simply "stands there", looking nowhere. We may think it's absurd, but that's just the way it works... SRD are secondary to the WOTC manuals. I've not the DMG with me now. I will write when I will be at home We are all waiting, then... besides i fear the wait will be long... :D (and may I suggest you to search for combat rules on the PHB instead of DMG?)
Leilond 06-19-07, 06:21 AM	I still wonder how i'ts possible in your logic to consider a blind and deaf character a "threat" to you. Have you ever seen a real blind? Those with a dog as a guide? Now consider that real blind persons are accustomed to their condition. And now consider how threatening it would be a character that becomes blinded and deafened all of a sudden. You are trying to tell me that a blinded and deafened charachter waves his weapon around all the time, but you know that this is not true in D&D combat, because it works on turns, and on the other's turn a blinded and deafened character cannot make AoO, so he simply "stands there", looking nowhere. RAW Does something prevent a such character to attack me during his turn? If something in the manual say this than the character do not threaten me We may think it's absurd, but that's just the way it works... Logic No, that's not the way it works. Characters doesn't "stands there" looking nowhere. Because they're AC isn't that of a paralized character. I remember you that the rules say that a paralized character are considered with "dexterity = 0" and opponent get +4 to hit, while a blinded character has only the bonus negated and opponent has -2 to AC. A blinded character actively move his sword and shield in hope to save hims self from swing and to hit something Pratical example Character with full plate and dexterity 10 blinded: AC 16... With a BAB of +1 I hit that Character with 15 Character with full plate paralized: AC 13, opponent get +4 to hit... with a BAB of +1 I hit that character with 8 A very big difference! The blinded character is actively working for avoiding swings or you cannot justify this difference We are all waiting, then... besides i fear the wait will be long... :D (and may I suggest you to search for combat rules on the PHB instead of DMG?) Why so "sarcastic"? Have I've never lacked respect to you all. I always point that I'm talking about interpretation. I always pointed that you simply understand different from me. I always pointed that the fact I think you're wrong doesn't mean your wrong. Why can't you have the same respect of other user opinion as I do? Is it so difficult to be nice with people that never said nothing against "you" but only pointed out that "thinks you're wrong"?
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 06:50 AM	A very big difference! The blinded character is actively working for avoiding swings or you cannot justify this difference For avoiding, not for attacking. His "ability to attack as a whole" in the other's turn is reduced to zero. If you are talking of common sense, a blinded and deafened character is not really something to be concerned about. Even in the rules this is true: in his turn he can try to attack in my square, with severe penalties and a 50% miss chance. In the other's turn he cannot attack at all. Anyway, this is the final point: D&D combat works on initiative turns and no simultaneity exist. Let's see if you can demonstrate the contrary.
Leilond 06-19-07, 07:00 AM	For avoiding, not for attacking. His "ability to attack as a whole" in the other's turn is reduced to zero. But the rules (as I undestand it) say that "other's turn" isn't an issue to be considered. If you are talking of common sense, a blinded and deafened character is not really something to be concerned about. Even in the rules this is true: in his turn he can try to attack in my square, with severe penalties and a 50% miss chance. In the other's turn he cannot attack at all. But "in others turn" isn't an issue, because the rules (as I undestand them) say it isn't. The rules (as I understand them) say that you only need to be able to attack as (using the words you used to justify your position about running out of AoO) general ability, not "during opponent turn ability". Anyway, this is the final point: D&D combat works on initiative turns and no simultaneity exist. Let's see if you can demonstrate the contrary. That's not important. That's the "logic issue" and if you don't like it I can easly forgot it (I won't, I will look if my family and time will let me do it... pheraps not today, but sure I'll do) By the way, if I cannot find nothing about "simultaneity", I still think that the RAW say what I say they say (sorry for the word joke, English isn't my language) It isn't ONLY a problem of "simultaneity". If there are turns, you still are going to recive a swing within half a second, that prevent you from "ignoring" the foe, no matter about AoO, it is a clear danger near you, with a sword swinging within half a second affter his ally one, yuo must divide your attention between the two opponent I think (that doesn't mean I'm right) RAW perfectly support my understanding Logic perfectly support my view abuth what it is "a threaten".
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 07:22 AM	But the rules (as I undestand it) say that "other's turn" isn't an issue to be considered. Are we talking about RAW or common sense? I was talking of common sense, but it seems to me that you are mixing the two things, switching between them when you find yourself out of arguments... You are saiyng that a blinded and deafened character regards an equal concern as any other character with no such penalties. This for common sense is simply absurd. With your interpretation we have a lot of small absurd things (following common sense), that you have to fix or justify. The other interpretation have no such flaws. Taking this for assumed, we may return to our RAW interpretation...
maharai23 06-19-07, 07:37 AM	Actualy, nauseated creatures cannot attack only because the authors assume that with a move action left you cannot attack, but we know there are ways to attack even with a move action left. So, your point is flawed. PHB glossary, p. 310: nauseated: Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn, plus free actions (except for casting quickened spells). By RAW, Nauseated characters cannot attack. EVER. PHB, p. 137 Threatened squares:You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. How many squares can a nauseated creature make a melee attack into? None. Thus, how many squares does a nauseated creature threaten? None. Thus, by RAW, nauseated characters cannot threaten. The view is not flawed. Only your assumptions. For others suggesting that Total Defense should threaten... PHB, p. 142, You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense. Note, total defense is not a status. It's a choice. You are still ABLE to attack. There is no statement saying that you cannot threaten. Thus, you threaten, but you cannot make Attacks of Opportunity, much like an opponent with cover nearby. Because of this, Characters in Full defense CAN provide flanking bonuses. The only reason you cannot attack while doing a total defense action is that you've used your standard action for the round. The logic of people saying that you don't threaten is like saying people are paralyzed because they drank 2 potions in the round. Just because you use your actions for something other than attack doesn't mean you can't attack.
Leilond 06-19-07, 07:49 AM	Are we talking about RAW or common sense? I was talking of common sense, but it seems to me that you are mixing the two things, switching between them when you find yourself out of arguments... I think that what I say is perfectly RAW. I only reworded it to make it clear to you what I undersand, but if you prefer I will stop wording A blinded character threaten because the rules say so You are saiyng that a blinded and deafened character regards an equal concern as any other character with no such penalties. This for common sense is simply absurd. With your interpretation we have a lot of small absurd things (following common sense), that you have to fix or justify. I don't think so. A dog regards an equal concearn as a 20 level fighter giant with an huge magical flaming sword... both privide a +2 flankin bonus A blinded character deserve enought attention to provide a +2 flanking bonus The other interpretation have no such flaws. I don't see any such a flaw in mine Taking this for assumed, we may return to our RAW interpretation... I gave my RAW interpretation lots of time. If you want I can repeat
Blackstorm_SK 06-19-07, 08:54 AM	RAW Yes. The rules doesn't say a flat-footed character cannot attack, only cannot "make AdO" logic You're ready for battle while flat-footed. You're not "totally ready" If your dexterity is (for example) 10 and you're flat-footed, your AC is the same and it is better than the AC of a character with dexterity 9 not flat-footed. This means that you're actively moving and dodging swings... a bit worse than usual (in fact you can recive sneak attack) but far from paralized or stunned. Sorry, but... you're saying that: not able to make AoO and no dex bonus to AC menas that a character is ready for battle? He cannot attack until it's his turn. Following this logic, a surprise round is a nonsense... So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally You can move when it's not your turn? RAW Does the rules says that if you're blinded you cannot attack someone? If it say this you do not threaten. Logic Yes. You are swinging your weapon like a mad man, your enemy must pay attantion to you, must divide his attention between you and your ally. So you're a threat for your allies, too. If an ally is in melee with an enemy, how can you have the certainity to hit your enemy? You threat all. Or nobody. RAW Does the rule says that you cannot attack an invisible foe if he's invisible? If it say this you do not threaten Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally Ok. Let's play. I'm invisible. My turn: strike, move. Where am I? And I must worry? RAW Sure, nothing in the rules prevent you from attacking as a whole while balancing. Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally You're balncing. How can you threaten if you must pay attention to avoid fall? RAW Does the rules says that you do not threten while using "total defense"? If it say this you do not threaten Logic You can swing at him and your opponent must divide his attention between you and your ally Yeah. It's logic, your only concern is to defend yourself, so you take care for attacks. I threat because I'm a clear danger, because I'm moving, swinging and dodging And because you cannot make attacks, don't forget it. I do not see any strange there. Cover give you some good bonus, like being able to cast without risking an AdO, not the ability to ignore a flanker I see. It's not strange that it's more dangerous casting defensively rather than not? Wow. And, sorry, but if I have cove from a foe and from his ally that flanking me? I've a double threat, two flanking foes, they're threat me... and so I can cast normally? A flat-footed can't act normally, but can act. There's a difference between "I cannot act normally" and "I cannot act" A charachter armed normally threaten. A flat foote charachter can't do normal things. SRD are secondary to the WOTC manuals. I've not the DMG with me now. I will write when I will be at home Proof me that the srd says something different from phb. Find it, write it. And I'm not saying flavour text. I'm saying rules. Find it, please. SOME point. Not the general working of the rule Yeah. So the two of you are using the same rule, and get from it two different conclusions for SOME point. How much worms you need for saying that an apple is gone bad? You and thondar are using the same rule interpretation to get two opposite statement in some point. One point is enough to say that there's something wrong. I didn't say that. You're a bit distracted, not enought to stop being a danger for your enemy. You ever tried to balance on an icy surface with only the shoes? Please, stop writing that I said things I never said, it isn't nice I never said "you're ablsoutely not distracted while balancing", there's nothing in what I said that can in any way bring us to this conclusion. You simply added never said things to my mounth... not nice at all Hmm. So you're saying that's much more difficult attack someone that balance yourself? I'll try next time to the ice palace. By the way, if I cannot find nothing about "simultaneity", I still think that the RAW say what I say they say Hmm. Yeah. You can't find support to your thesis, so you still think you're right. And why you conntinue to post here? If you're thinking you're right anyway, doesn't matter what we can say.
Kalvalastir 06-19-07, 09:09 AM	I don't think so. A dog regards an equal concearn as a 20 level fighter giant with an huge magical flaming sword... both privide a +2 flankin bonus A blinded character deserve enought attention to provide a +2 flanking bonus Is not about how powerful the enemy is, but how the enemy behaves. If you are blind and deaf, who cares if you are a dog or a "20 level fighter giant with an huge magical flaming sword"? I repeat: do you have ever seen a real blind person? From what you are saying, I guess you've not... or maybe you are bending your beliefs in accord to "your RAW interpretation"... be honest... I don't see any such a flaw in mine I showed you the flaws, and you even tried to justify them... saying that a blinded and deafened character regards an equal concern as any other character with no such penalties (which is clearly absurd), or saying that a flat-footed character is ready for the battle, only "not totally" (which is nonsense, one can't be ready and "not totally" ready at the same time). There are more, but these will be enough... I gave my RAW interpretation lots of time. If you want I can repeat I still think you are mixing common sense with RAW, when you lack in arguments...
thondar 06-19-07, 09:59 AM	You have contradicted yourself here. You say that you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs, and this means that threat can't be considered a prerequisite, as Egres said, but they are two different elements that influence each other. I don’t say you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs Egres, blackstorm and kalvalastir say that (and contradict theirself). My position is: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That is: 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten such squares even when it is not your action. 3) except declared exception (of course) If I'm wrong, why did you answer "yes" to this question? How can you know that you threaten? I answer yes because you say I can do AoO, but to do AoO I need threat so your hypothetical condition obviusly give threat too. Be specific in your question. Talking about logic instead of "RAW" we can say You threaten because your enemy must keep attention to you. Because, as the manual say, the turns are "all at the same moment"... Where do they say this? I don't remember... (in fact as I can remember they don't say this AT ALL... combat in D&D is an astraction... and is NOT simultaneous... besides of whatever you may think) You can read the bold? He’s speaking about logic, not rules. We are all waiting, then... besides i fear the wait will be long... Fear no more. Give a look a DMG pg24 Are we talking about RAW or common sense? I was talking of common sense, but it seems to me that you are mixing the two things No so difficoult. Read the bold.
Blackstorm_SK 06-19-07, 10:47 AM	I don’t say you threaten because you know that you can make AoOs Egres, blackstorm and kalvalastir say that (and contradict theirself). Lol. I don't think. My position is: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That is: 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten such squares even when it is not your action. 3) except declared exception (of course) Yaeh. Now, how can you say that you threaten in this hypotetical situation? Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? How can you say yes? You cannot attack, so you don't threaten, but you can make AoO. And this happen following your stetements. I answer yes because you say I can do AoO, but to do AoO I need threat so your hypothetical condition obviusly give threat too. Be specific in your question. He doesn't need to be specific. You know the threatened area definition, and you have all that you need to say yes or no. You've said yes, so you contraddict yourself, 'cause you cannot makke reg attacks, so you shouldn't threaten. Fear no more. Give a look a DMG pg24 You haven't read it with attention, I suppose.
thondar 06-19-07, 10:53 AM	Wow. If I have the concept of attack I threaten? And if I have the concept of richness I'm rich? Do you like wordplay? Maybe you haven’t anything smart to say… So you're not a threat, but you threaten. I love logic. No. You love wordplay Rules don't says that you must ignore the your turn/not your turn. Your rules. We have explained that from the first post. Don’t play dumb. If you have IUS feat, and you're stunned, if the threat depends from rich, as thondar says, you threat. No because stunned negate threat. Sorry, but... you're saying that: not able to make AoO and no dex bonus to AC menas that a character is ready for battle? He cannot attack until it's his turn. Following this logic, a surprise round is a nonsense... He said a flat footed is ready for battle but not totally ready. In a surprise round you are unaware and you can’t act. It’s different. You can move when it's not your turn? Yes. You can’t take a move action, but you can move. And he’s speaking about logic. So you're a threat for your allies, too. If an ally is in melee with an enemy, how can you have the certainity to hit your enemy? You threat all. Or nobody. He can attack in a square. If somehow he know where’s his enemy he can attack that square, so he threat. If he don’t know where’s his enemy he can attack, so he don’t threat. Don’t ask again how you can know that. It don’t matter. Ok. Let's play. I'm invisible. My turn: strike, move. Where am I? And I must worry? I have to repeat? A charachter armed normally threaten. A flat foote charachter can't do normal things. Another wordplay… You and thondar are using the same rule interpretation to get two opposite statement in some point. One point is enough to say that there's something wrong. It’s a faq our disagreement. For me it’s wrong because contradict the rule, for he is right because don’t see contradiction. But you knew this. Don’t play dumb. I remember you have eight faq against your interpretation (and some rule). Hmm. Yeah. You can't find support to your thesis, so you still think you're right. And why you conntinue to post here? If you're thinking you're right anyway, doesn't matter what we can say. He speaking about simultaneità, so if he can’t find nothing about that he lose just some logic support. Anyway I have find that support too. You cannot attack, so you don't threaten, but you can make AoO. And this happen following your stetements. No. You need threat to make AoO. So can do AoO imply to threat. (but can't do AoO don't imply to don't threat) I repeat: he need to be specific. You haven't read it with attention, I suppose. You too need to be specific
Marcus Majarra 06-19-07, 01:22 PM	Only by your intrepretation, that arbitrarily says that if you can't make attacks at all you don't threaten, but when you can't make attacks at all during your opponent's turn you do threaten. Meh... Actually, not quite. If something is preventing you from making attacks outside your turn, you do not threaten outside your turn. The point becomes moot when you stop deferring to the unfounded assumption that attacking outside your turn equates to making attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are only a single way of attacking during another's turn. It is by no means exclusive. Right. But what about when it's your opponent's turn? Nothing changes whether it's your opponent's turn or your own. AoOs are not the only way to attack during an opponent's turn. If you're not in a condition that prevents you from making an attack into a given square (not to be confused with a condition that prevents you from making AoOs), you threaten that square, flat-footed or not. Really? Let's think about an hypothetical condition that allows you to make AoO but not regular attacks during your turn. Would you threaten in such condition? I like the way you think. This is actually addressing the idea of not being able to attack as a way to determine threat. In all honesty, it depends on how it's written. In the most likely sense (the one that explicitly forbids you from attacking during your turn and only during your turn), odds are that you will be unable to threaten during your turn, but will still do so outside of it. The reasoning behinds this is simple: During your turn you cannot attack. Even if someone manages to provoke an AoO from you during your turn, you still wouldn't be able to take it (since this condition would presumably prevent you from doing so). However, the moment your turn ends, you recover the ability to make AoOs. By extension, this makes you able to attack, as you cannot make AoOs if you cannot attack. As such, the moment your turn ends, you threaten again. How can you know that you threaten? You know that you threaten because you have the ability to make an attack into a square. Even if the condition you suggested above prevented the use of AoOs as well, it still wouldn't be enough to eliminate your ability to threaten outside your turn: you need to be unable to attack in order to be unable to threaten. You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. This is a good catch. I don't remember it being in the PHB or DMG, but it's perfectly reasonable. RotG have plenty of good things to offer in terms of clarifications and addenda. Marcus misunderstood me as you did. I always talked of an invisible foe (since Total Concealment is relevant for determining AoOs, if it applies to the target). Where exactly is the misunderstanding? From the perspective of a blind flanker or a flanker against an invisible flankee, I see threat and flanking working normally. From the perspective of a blind flankee or an invisible flanker, I only see threat working normally. I'll say it again, that was a good catch from the RotG article. I still wonder how i'ts possible in your logic to consider a blind and deaf character a "threat" to you. Have you ever seen a real blind? Those with a dog as a guide? Now consider that real blind persons are accustomed to their condition. And now consider how threatening it would be a character that becomes blinded and deafened all of a sudden. You are trying to tell me that a blinded and deafened charachter waves his weapon around all the time, but you know that this is not true in D&D combat, because it works on turns, and on the other's turn a blinded and deafened character cannot make AoO, so he simply "stands there", looking nowhere. We may think it's absurd, but that's just the way it works... You're arguing from the perspective that threat is relative to the defender. By this kind of logic, anything you do not perceive as a genuine threat cannot threaten you, which makes no sense. How you evaluate risk doesn't actually change the risk. In D&D, threat is determined by the attacker's ability to attack, and nothing more. While anything that limits the character's ability to attack might make the character less dangerous, the threat is still present because the attacker has the ability to attack you. For avoiding, not for attacking. His "ability to attack as a whole" in the other's turn is reduced to zero. This is a false statement. Not being able to make AoOs does not equate to not being able to attack during another's turn. Readied actions allow you to interrupt another's turn, and spells like snake's swiftness allow you to attack at the moment of casting. You are saiyng that a blinded and deafened character regards an equal concern as any other character with no such penalties. This is not the case. The blinded and deafened conditions carry their own drawbacks, and they can be pretty hefty. What you need to take into account, however, is that neither puts you in a position where you are unable to make an attack, as the nauseated condition does, for example. If you are blind and deaf, who cares if you are a dog or a "20 level fighter giant with an huge magical flaming sword"? Well, if you don't care, then by all means do take risky actions within reach or even stay within reach. Neither will eliminate the blind and deaf's ability to attack you.
Blackstorm_SK 06-19-07, 03:25 PM	Do you like wordplay? Maybe you haven’t anything smart to say… Uh... I'm sooo scarred. What a RAW-based thing. This make me fall to the ground helpless. Please, if you've nothing to say about my reply, don't reply. No. You love wordplay Read above. No because stunned negate threat. No, stunned says that you can't take actions. Not that you don't threat. It's the same thing you've said for total defense. Decide yourself: threat or not? He said a flat footed is ready for battle but not totally ready. In a surprise round you are unaware and you can’t act. It’s different. So in a surprise round you're not flat-footed? Adn, btw, as Kal says, there's no "not totally ready": you're ready for the battle, or you're not ready. What means "not totally"? "Oh, wait, I'm not totally ready, i must wear my shoes for the battle."... Come on. Yes. You can’t take a move action, but you can move. And he’s speaking about logic. And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? He can attack in a square. If somehow he know where’s his enemy he can attack that square, so he threat. If he don’t know where’s his enemy he can attack, so he don’t threat. And if he is blinded and don't know where the enemy is he don't threat, right? Ok. Let's play. I'm invisible. My turn: strike, move. Where am I? And I must worry? I have to repeat? Yes. Since you never answered to this question. After I move, how can you say where am I, if you don't have blindsight, scent, see invisibility, etc? Another wordplay… Wow. Macally, when I'm speaking of logic, it transform in wordplay. Two weights, two measures. It’s a faq our disagreement. For me it’s wrong because contradict the rule, for he is right because don’t see contradiction. But you knew this. Don’t play dumb. Wow. So you quote the faq to sustain your thesis when a faq it's wrog for you? Wizardry. I remember you have eight faq against your interpretation (and some rule). No rule. And the faq contraddict themeselves all the time. How can I take them as rules explanation? He speaking about simultaneità, so if he can’t find nothing about that he lose just some logic support. Anyway I have find that support too. Your find a rule? It doesn't seem to me. No. You need threat to make AoO. So can do AoO imply to threat. (but can't do AoO don't imply to don't threat) I repeat: he need to be specific. Ok. I'll be more specific. Let's say that a spell says: your opponent can make only AoO. No reg attacks. My opponent threat? In his turn? In my turn? You too need to be specific I need a rule. Actually, not quite. If something is preventing you from making attacks outside your turn, you do not threaten outside your turn. Totally agree. The point becomes moot when you stop deferring to the unfounded assumption that attacking outside your turn equates to making attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are only a single way of attacking during another's turn. It is by no means exclusive. Ok. Tell me all the ways with you can attack during other's turn. (Don't cite Cleave, please, cause it requires an attack before you can use it...) Ah, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Reference_Document Compared to the published source books for the Dungeons and Dragons game, the SRD provides the same basic rules but lacks "flavor" elements. And SRD are secondary to the manuals, yes?
thondar 06-19-07, 04:31 PM	These sentences are your express your personal taste, but are meaningles in a rules debate. Relate all speech. I Asked the difference between these phrases according your interpretation 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 2) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You answered The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. I talk back saying that this clarification was useless because to threat in your turn is almost useless (in your interpretation) so it is clear you can threat out your turn using AoO (in your interpretation). This mean they add a phrase useless in a definition. Strange… very strange. Stunned’s a condition that expressly remove the threat. Actually that's not true. Try again. In our interpretation it’s true. As say marcus it negate actions, so negate attack. You already asked for it… don’t repeat please. SS doesn't give you SS even if it allows you to attack when you were incapable of doing so before. You can read yourself in my previous post. I asked what kind of threat are you when you can't attack me during my casting. Same when you finish your AoO. AoOs negated? No threaten. I can’t read this in the rule. It's just your interpretation People don't like to admit they changed their mind, but don't ask me why. I made it. Leilond too. Yourself said it. Blackstorm too. He said it. So? So, you still want to cite something that sometimes says you are right, and sometimes says you are wrong. No exactly. 1 time say I’m wrong. 8 times say I’m right and you are wrong. And that single time was a particular case.
thondar 06-19-07, 05:50 PM	Uh... I'm sooo scarred. What a RAW-based thing. We use more raw than you. You say just faq aren’t rules stunned says that you can't take actions. Not that you don't threat. It's the same thing you've said for total defense. No. Using only PHB Total defense give threat because it don’t negate attack. PHBII say differently because it’s wrong o because clarify PHB. I don’t know (you neither). Anyway using PHB II total defense don’t give threat because it say so. He said a flat footed is ready for battle but not totally ready. In a surprise round you are unaware and you can’t act. It’s different. So in a surprise round you're not flat-footed? Yes, you are flat footed but you are unable to act too. Adn, btw, as Kal says, there's no "not totally ready": you're ready for the battle, or you're not ready. That’s your (wrong) opinion. Yes. You can’t take a move action, but you can move. And he’s speaking about logic. And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? When someone speaks about rules you speak about logic and when someone speaks about logic you speak about rules… Move, what move? An action move? No can’t generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn’t speak about an action move and you know that. Don’t play dumb. Don’t make wordplay. I can’t stay here to answer all your silly questions. This way what do you think prove? And if he is blinded and don't know where the enemy is he don't threat, right? Bravo!!! You understand that. At last. After I move, how can you say where am I, if you don't have blindsight, scent, see invisibility, etc? I never answered to this question???? Another silly question… Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. Yes? Then you can attack me. Then you are a threat. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. Etc one If you're invisible, he is blinded against you. And you know it. Btw, how can you, blinded, not knowing from where I'll strike, not knowing where I'll be next turn, be a threat? If this round I know where you are I threat. Two Ok. Greater invisibility. Combat: my turn: strike, move. Your turn: can you tell where am I? Yes (see above) three Get the point? How can you threaten?You don’t get the point Do you know where I am? No? then you can’t attack me. Then you don’t threat. Yes? Then you can attack me. Then you are a threat. How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. I highlight the point. four Black asked if you know where your opponent is if he strikes at you and then moves. You answered "yes", pointing your previous quote about invisible attackers. Unfortunately the text also says: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). How can you know where I am? It don’t matter. Anyway a creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him. A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one. Etci.e: you can do a spot check (+20 DC). five Ok. Let's play. I'm invisible. My turn: strike, move. Where am I? And I must worry? I have to repeat? six I ask again. Have you understood or I have to repeat? Don’t play dumb. Don’t make wordplay. I can’t stay here to answer all your silly questions. This way what do you think prove? A charachter armed normally * threaten. A flat foote charachter can't do normal ** things. Another wordplay… Wow. Macally, when I'm speaking of logic, it transform in wordplay. Two weights, two measures. Quote all blackstorm, don’t cut your wordplay… normally *: generally, usually normal **: common, regular Don’t play dumb. Don’t make wordplay. I can’t stay here to answer all your silly questions. This way what do you think prove? So you quote the faq to sustain your thesis when a faq it's wrog for you? 1 time say I’m wrong. 8 times say I’m right and you are wrong. And that single time was a particular case. I'll be more specific. Let's say that a spell says: your opponent can make only AoO. No reg attacks. My opponent threat? In his turn? In my turn? which spell say it? Why you can’t do regular attack? It specifically allow AoO but don’t say nothing about threat? If you answer yes to the last question I can say the spell don’t negate threat because you need threat to make AoO (Be clear I don’t say you threat because you can do AoO). How it’s possible I don’t know because I don’t know this spell. be more specific. Ah, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Reference_Document Compared to the published source books for the Dungeons and Dragons game, the SRD provides the same basic rules but lacks "flavor" elements. And SRD are secondary to the manuals, yes? What do you fear from manuals, blackstorm? Anyway wiki not’s a ufficial source for D&D. Look the wizard site: The System Reference Document is a comprehensive toolbox consisting of rules, races, classes, feats, skills, various systems, spells, magic items, and monsters compatible with the d20 System version of Dungeons & Dragons and various other roleplaying games from Wizards of the Coast. We play to D&D, not to d20. I’ve said this in italian forum too.
Blackstorm_SK 06-19-07, 07:45 PM	We use more raw than you. You say just faq aren’t rules The faq can add or modify a rule? No. So how can them be rules, if they regard the already written rules? That’s your (wrong) opinion. Oh. Make me an example of "not totally ready for battle". In the real life, please. Move, what move? An action move? No can’t generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn’t speak about an action move and you know that. Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? I can’t stay here to answer all your silly questions. So, don't reply. Bravo!!! You understand that. At last. You don't get the point even if it's in front of you. I've ever said that a blinded charachter threaten? You're so funny when acting like this. Quote all blackstorm, don’t cut your wordplay… normally *: generally, usually normal **: common, regular You don't get the point: it's not a wordplay. I can’t stay here to answer all your silly questions. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny. If you don't want to reply, don't reply. which spell say it? You need it? No. Why you can’t do regular attack? What part of "the spell say so" you don't get? It specifically allow AoO but don’t say nothing about threat? What part of "the spell says that the target can't attack, but can make AoOs" you don't get? If you answer yes to the last question I can say the spell don’t negate threat because you need threat to make AoO (Be clear I don’t say you threat because you can do AoO). It's clear. The spells says nothing else. So, you cannot attack for duration of the spell. But you're sayng that you threat. But you've said that if you cannot make reg attack because the're negated, you don't threat. How can you resolve this? How it’s possible I don’t know because I don’t know this spell. be more specific. How it's possible for a wiz polymorph himself? The spell say so. I've get you all the infos that the spell get. It not saying nothing else of threat or other thing. What do you fear from manuals, blackstorm? Anyway wiki not’s a ufficial source for D&D. Look the wizard site: We play to D&D, not to d20. I’ve said this in italian forum too. Fear? Young boy. Proof me that SRD and manuals don't have exactly the same rules. Proof it. Until that moment, if I ask a SRD reference, nor you or Leilond can say that SRD is secondary. Btww, if you don't get the point, don't reply, to this part. It was not referred to you.
thondar 06-19-07, 09:10 PM	The faq can add or modify a rule? No. So how can them be rules, if they regard the already written rules? You don't get the point. Your defense is based on ignore the faqs because they aren't rules. It's true, a faq not's a rule but when 8 faqs go against your interpretation (no against a rule) then probably your interpretation is wrong. Oh. Make me an example of "not totally ready for battle". In the real life, please. Someone take off-guard: he can act, he can defend and attack too but he isn't to his best (how you asked it's logic, no rule). Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? I repeat too. he's speaking about logic, not rule. So yes you can move. About rules? yes, he can move. I've ever said that a blinded charachter threaten? So? You don't get the point: it's not a wordplay. Yes, it's a wordplay. It's clear. The spells says nothing else. Maybe it's clear for your interpretation. Spells can bring in exception to rules or unique cases, so not's clear. So, you cannot attack for duration of the spell. But you're sayng that you threat. But you've said that if you cannot make reg attack because the're negated, you don't threat. I don't say you can threat, the spell say that. The spell say you can do AoO, but for rules you can do AoO only when you threat, so you.. threat. It's clear now? How can you resolve this? I've just answered... How it’s possible I don’t know because I don’t know this spell. be more specific. Anyway this (nonexistent) spell bring in an exception to rule or an unique case. Proof me that SRD and manuals don't have exactly the same rules. Proof it. I repeat. We play to D&D, not to d20. Anyway how you definite a rule? how can you distingue a rule from flavor test o from a description? Until that moment, if I ask a SRD reference, nor you or Leilond can say that SRD is secondary. You ask? It don't matter what do you ask. I can quote PHB, if I want and it's not secondary to SRD.
Psion_3 06-20-07, 02:34 AM	I answer yes because you say I can do AoO, but to do AoO I need threat so your hypothetical condition obviusly give threat too. Be specific in your question. Actually, you are contradicting yourself once more. You say that threat is a prerequisite to make an AoO, and so you say that if I have AoOs I threat. But this is inconsistent with your assumption, cause you are saying that you threaten because you know that you can make AoO, that is, what your opponents are saying all the time here. By your reasoning, you must before know if you threaten, and then you can say that you can make aoOs. But in your last answer you say "I can make AoOs and this means I threaten", confriming Egres and other's point. Think about it: in my example the only thing that makes you able to attack are AoOs, and you say that you threaten because you have AoOs. In fact, without them you would say that you don't threaten. Now, saying that you threaten because you have AoOs is exactly what Egres and the others are repeating over and over again. I'm not challenging you: just try to answer politely, cause I think this is the main point of this debate.
Egres 06-20-07, 02:49 AM	Actually, not quite. If something is preventing you from making attacks outside your turn, you do not threaten outside your turn. The point becomes moot when you stop deferring to the unfounded assumption that attacking outside your turn equates to making attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are only a single way of attacking during another's turn. It is by no means exclusive. True. But what if you are outside your turn, are falt footed and have no other way (SSwiftness and such) to make an attack? You have no way to make a regular attack, and AoOs are negated. Do you threaten? Nothing changes whether it's your opponent's turn or your own. AoOs are not the only way to attack during an opponent's turn. If you're not in a condition that prevents you from making an attack into a given square (not to be confused with a condition that prevents you from making AoOs), you threaten that square, flat-footed or not. Same as above. This is a good catch. I don't remember it being in the PHB or DMG, but it's perfectly reasonable. RotG have plenty of good things to offer in terms of clarifications and addenda. Try to tell it to thondar. That bit negates his points. This is a false statement. Not being able to make AoOs does not equate to not being able to attack during another's turn. Readied actions allow you to interrupt another's turn, and spells like snake's swiftness allow you to attack at the moment of casting. Sure. But, what if you don't have them? SS is a spell, and readying an action is a special intiative action. Saying that you threaten with them doesn't mean that you threaten no matter if you use them or not. The difference is that if you don't add that you can threaten in your opponent's turn the you could think that AoO wouldn't threaten, and you wouldn't even be able to attack threatening the area. I talk back saying that this clarification was useless because to threat in your turn is almost useless (in your interpretation) so it is clear you can threat out your turn using AoO (in your interpretation). It's not useless, because I know it thank to the second sentence. Read it carefully. In our interpretation it’s true. As say marcus it negate actions, so negate attack. You already asked for it… don’t repeat please. But I'm asking for a rules based answer. Can you cite the rule the support it? Be more maieutic, please. Same when you finish your AoO. Same when you finish your regular attacks. I made it. Leilond too. Yourself said it. Blackstorm too. He said it. So? We are Italian.;) No exactly. 1 time say I’m wrong. 8 times say I’m right and you are wrong. And that single time was a particular case. Actually those 8 times are only in your mind, since I have already showed that they don't contradict me at all. Try again.
Egres 06-20-07, 02:57 AM	Edit
Psion_3 06-20-07, 02:58 AM	I like the way you think. This is actually addressing the idea of not being able to attack as a way to determine threat. In all honesty, it depends on how it's written. In the most likely sense (the one that explicitly forbids you from attacking during your turn and only during your turn), odds are that you will be unable to threaten during your turn, but will still do so outside of it. The reasoning behinds this is simple: During your turn you cannot attack. Even if someone manages to provoke an AoO from you during your turn, you still wouldn't be able to take it (since this condition would presumably prevent you from doing so). However, the moment your turn ends, you recover the ability to make AoOs. By extension, this makes you able to attack, as you cannot make AoOs if you cannot attack. As such, the moment your turn ends, you threaten again. Thanks for your answer. I have three more questions, if you like: 1) what if this condition allows you to make AoOs during your turn, but not regular attacks? 2) with the bolded sentence you say that you treaten becasue you recovery the ability to make AoOs: this means that Kalvalastir's and others point is right? 3) what if during your turn you cannot make regular attacks, but can make AoOs? 4) what if during your turn the only attacks you can make are AoOs, and AoOs only? You know that you threaten because you have the ability to make an attack into a square. Even if the condition you suggested above prevented the use of AoOs as well, it still wouldn't be enough to eliminate your ability to threaten outside your turn: you need to be unable to attack in order to be unable to threaten. Basing my reasoning on your reply I could say that even stunned creatures threaten because there's a feat like Unconditional Power.
Leilond 06-20-07, 04:08 AM	Kalvastir, here I demostrate that the D&D author intended to make action "simultaneous", as you asked me The first part of this post talk about LOGIC, not RAW... I think that when there are two different understanding of a rule, the "flavour text" and the "logical issues" can point us the "intentions of the authors" and can help us to find the correct one. If you don't like this approach you can ignore the first part of the post Anyway, this is the final point: D&D combat works on initiative turns and no simultaneity exist. Let's see if you can demonstrate the contrary. Here you are Go the english version of the "Dungeon Master Guide", chapter "Combat", section "KEEPING THINGS MOVING", subsection "Simultaneus activity", page 24 You'll find this When you play out a combat scene or some other activity, for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PC's and NPC's actions are occurring simultanously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this essential order of play occasionally lead to situation when something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other character have acted in the same round. For instance, suppose Tordek houstles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and houstles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to mantain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't tirgger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him some time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during the same time This demostrate that the INTENTION of the WOTC is to think actions like they're simultanoeus, or at least separed only by fractions of seconds. It isn't strictly a "Rule", but it can help us to understand the Author intention If you go to the english version of the "Player Handbook", Chapter "Combat", section "ACTIONS IN COMBAT", subsection "THE COMBAT ROUND", page 138 Each round represent 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round rapresent the opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round Each round's activit begin with the character with the highes initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of combat uses the same initiative order. When a characters's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character perform his entire round's worth of actions. (For exception, see Attack of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160). For almost all pourpose, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term "round" works like the word "month". A month can be either a calendar month or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day in the next month. In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time form one round to the same initiative of the next round. .... Let's go then to the english version of the "Player Handbook" again, Chapter "COMBAT", section "ACTIONS IN COMBAT", subsection "STANDARD ACTIONS", sub-subsection "Attack rolls", page 139 Attack roll[b]: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the [b]round, you manage to connect solidly ... This two parts help us to understend even better the flow of time and attacks in D&D. For example, being able to attack during a round, means "being able to attack in at least one moment from an initiative count, to the same next use of that initiative". This can also clarify that the actions that a character make in a round, can be considered that begin at his initiative and finish at the beginning of his next initiative. That means a character able to attack swing and fight for the entire round and it measn that attacking in a round means "swinging for 6 second in search of a solid connect". These aren't properly "rules" and if you want to talk only about rule you can ignore this first part, but I think that these considerations help us to understand better the rules, because we're playing D&D and the things written in the PHB and DMG cannot be simply "ignored", also flavor text can help to understand a rule Still logically speaking (not RAW) I think I demostrate that in D&D the actions can be considered simultaneous (or at least very near to that). And for this reason, a character able to normally attack, but not able to do AoO, is perfectly active in the combat. Pheraps not as effective as he can be, pheraps not at his "max potential", but the character is swinging, dodging, parrying, "feinting" (logically, not RAW feint) and so on, during the entire round and not only during "his turn", and for this reason this character is a threaten, no matter about AoO (not RAW, I'm logically speaking, don't answer with RAW to logic) I know that something that appear perfectly logical to me, can appear illogical to someone else. My intention isn't to convice anyone that I'm right, nor to prove that you're wrong; as you can see I'm not pointing out what I think is illogical and not RAW in your understanding, because I understand that and that is all that I need from you: understand you. My intention is to clarify to everyone how I understand the rule and why I undertand them that way. If someone say "I understand you, I'm now able to apply your rule but I won't because I think you're wrong", I will be totally satisfied by the answer. But until someone try to "prove" that I'm wrong I will obviously respond because if you're doing that there can be only 2 reasons: 1) You didn't uderstand my understanding of the rule, and I will try to clarify 2) For some reason you want to prove I'm wrong. I don't know why and I don't want to "make wrong assumptions". You want to prove I'm wrong, then I will respond to your questions or when you say our understanding of the rule work differently from how we say Now let's talk about RAW and only RAW You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That means 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten even when it is not your action 3) Exception declared (obvious) For "Exception" I intend. a) Every condition that prevent you from "acting as a whole" prevent you from making a melee attack, no threaten (paralized) b) Every condition that prevent you from "attacking as a whole" prevent you from threatening (nauseated). I already explained the meaning of "as a whole", I will repeat on request, but not being able to make AoO doesn't mean not being able to attack "as a whole" c) Every contition that prevent from threatening a square (that means it is written "you don't threaten that square while in this condition"), or prevent yuo from threatening as a whole (that means it is written "you don't threaten any square while in this condition") prevent you from threatening (grappling) Each "adding word" to these aren't "my interpretation of the rule". This and only this is my interpretation, and only with this I can easly manage without any illogical consequence every possible situation that isn't covered by a "specific" or "situational" rule. End of RAW part Now I merge the two concept (RAW and logical), and I see that they perfectly feet togheter, without any illogical nor inconsistent conseguence... so I think I catched the right undestanding of the rule... but this doesn't means I'm right Pheraps I'm wrong, I'm a human being and no matter how sure I am, I can be wrong, I know that... but it doesn't mean I'm right now. I simply "think I'm right, knowing that this is the simple opinion of a d&d player, no more than that" P.S. Pleas, reply with "logic" to "logic parts" of the post, and reply with "RAW" to "RAW part" of the post... if you don't mind obvious P.P.S. And about this question what if during your turn you cannot make regular attacks, but can make AoOs? Tell me the situation you're talking about and I will answer. Different situations can have different "answers". BUT you have to remember that FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE, the AoO aren't an issue, nor "regular attack" are Only the "general condition" is The question is, does the condition that put you in the situation you point us prevent you from "attacking as a whole", or using other words "make you lose general ability to attack" No matter if you can attack "right now" or "in that moment" or the like. So if you're under cover I cannot make AoO against you, I drink a potion so I cannot make regular attack too, but I still threaten because 1) Being under cover do not make me unable to attack "as a whole" 2) Drinking a potion do not make me unable to attack "as a whole" 3) No declared exception in this situation This is my undestanding of the rule
Kalvalastir 06-20-07, 06:43 AM	Here you are Go the english version of the "Dungeon Master Guide", chapter "Combat", section "KEEPING THINGS MOVING", subsection "Simultaneus activity", page 24 All right, simultaneous activity was in the intentions of the authors. In fact they say "keep in mind that actions are intended to be simultaneous, while they aren't in fact". In the end, they're saying that by common sense actions are simultaneous, by the RAW they are not. In gameplay, you should feel free to apply common sense "In order to mantain the appearance of simultaneous activity" We all apply common sense in our gameplay, when we feel it's necessary. Now let's talk about RAW and only RAW That means 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten even when it is not your action 3) Exception declared (obvious) Now, assuming that you are not in your turn, make the 2nd sentence true (i.e. "it is not your action") and the 1st false (i.e. "you can't make attacks"), and what do you have? No threaten. Now you are arbitrarily choosing only explicit contidions that prevents you from "attacking as a whole"... while there are other situations, such as a Surprise Round, or Flat Footed condition in the others round (etc.), in which the impossibility to attack is a consequence of the situation... You are saying "turns are not an issue", because of the second part of the sentence ("even when it is not your action"), but showing no other evidence in the RAW, except for a few FAQs and ROTG articles, that points to nothing, because (as we've seen) they contradict other FAQs or articles, and in some cases, even core rules... Turns are not simultaneaous by the RAW. They are simultaneaous by common sense. In saying that is not important wether you are in your turn or not, because actions are simultaneous, you are influencing a RAW conclusion with a common sense assumption.
Leilond 06-20-07, 07:14 AM	All right, simultaneous activity was in the intentions of the authors. In fact they say "keep in mind that actions are intended to be simultaneous, while they aren't in fact". In the end, they're saying that by common sense actions are simultaneous, by the RAW they are not. First it doesn't say what you say It say "remember that all the PC's and NPC's actions are occurring simultanously" "intended" isn't a word that appear in this sentence But I was talking about logic, about "common sense", not RAW, so please respond on the same ground In gameplay, you should feel free to apply common sense "In order to mantain the appearance of simultaneous activity" We all apply common sense in our gameplay, when we feel it's necessary. You totally ignored my entire logic post, I understand that you don't like to use "common sense" to understand the intentions of the author and use that to undersand which understanding of the rule is the best. Ok, you in right to do so If you don't like to use common sense when there's an ambiguous rule, ignore all the logical part of my post, that's enought, no one can blame you for that Now, assuming that you are not in your turn, make the 2nd sentence true (i.e. "it is not your action") and the 1st false (i.e. "you can't make attacks"), and what do you have? No threaten. You know my answer! I'm sure you know If you make me always the same question, rewording it, you'll recive always the same answer... reworded Even if it is not your action isn't referred to "can make attack". Do you really don't understand what I want to mean? I'm sure you understood... why then pointing a "concept" if you know my answer? Can you speak english? Yes. What if I close your mouth. You can still speak english. What if I break your head making lose your memory and speaking abilities? No, you cannot speak english anymore. So, if my condition do not prevent me to attack as "general ability" I threaten the square in my reach (declared exception to be considered). Paralizzation is a condition that prevent me from attacking as general ability: I cannot attack while paralized. If you're under cover nothing prevent me to attack you as general ability: I still can attack you like you can speak english while I close your mouth. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. I reword to try to clarify AGAIN to you what's the meaning of the phrase (for me). I reword it NOT because it is needed for me (I understand perfectly clear like it is) but to let you understand me You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, no matter of turns There isn't any need of this rewording FOR ME, because I think it is pretty clear, but it can be usefull for you to understand ME If you don't like I can stop rewording and say simply You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. So the rules say I'm right. Not very nice, agree? The "rewording" is necessary to let you understand me, not for me to understand what I already understand Now you are arbitrarily choosing only explicit contidions that prevents you from "attacking as a whole"... while there are other situations, such as a Surprise Round, or Flat Footed condition in the others round (etc.), in which the impossibility to attack is a consequence of the situation... Wrong. In the "surprise round" rule it is WRITTEN that you "cannot act", in the flat-footed description IT ISN'T written. There's nothin "arbitrary", there is always a written rules when you cannot act If you are in a surprise round you cannot act AND you are flat-footed, you do not roll for initiative at all In the first round, after you rolle for initiative but you didn't act yet, you are "flat-footed" but not in a "surprise round". Nothing in the RAW say that flat-footed character cannot act You're using (your words) "consequence of the situation", while I use "written rules". It is written that during a surprise round, if you're not aware of the enemies, you do not roll for initiative, you cannot attack and you are flat-footed It isn't written anywhere that if you're flat-footed, you cannot attack as a whole. The rule say to ignore the "turns" issue (as I understand that), so I don't mind at all about that. You say the rules say something different and for this reason you remain in your mind of looking the way to attack during opponent turns You are saying "turns are not an issue", because of the second part of the sentence ("even when it is not your action"), but showing no other evidence in the RAW, except for a few FAQs and ROTG articles, that points to nothing, because (as we've seen) they contradict other FAQs or articles, and in some cases, even core rules... I stopped to talk about articles or faq since a lot. I only support my opinions with D&D manuals since then you didn't showed any evidence I'm wrong, only your opinions and your understanding of the rule Turns are not simultaneaous by the RAW. They are simultaneaous by common sense. Are we talking about raw or common sense? Put your question in the right environment. If you contest my "common sense" interpretation show me your "common sense" interpretation. If you contest my RAW understanding, show me your undertanding In saying that is not important wether you are in your turn or not, because actions are simultaneous, you are influencing a RAW conclusion with a common sense assumption. No. I didn't. Don't say that I said something I never said I said it is not important wether your in turn or not because the RAW say so. I said this since the beginning. An only AFTER 6 pages I added the common sense support my view for the pleasure of those users that use common sense when a rule is not uniquely understood. I also divided the "common sense" part of the post, from the RAW, to let people ingore the part they don't like to use This was my actions: - The rules (as I understand them) say that it isn't important if it is or not your action - Someone pointed me out that he understand that rule in a different way, without pointing me any evidence that I'm wrong - I think he's wrong, but there's the possibility that I'm wrong (there's always that possibility) - There's no way to "prove" it, because we're simply understanding the same phrase in two different ways - I think I'm right, but I know I can be wrong - I didn't find any rule in the core manuals that prove I'm wrong, nor anyone showed me any - So I look for other "common sens text" in the manuals to better understand the intention of the author - I find some that I think perfectly support my view. - So I think that I was right in the first place So I think I'm right by the RAW and by common sense I didn't say I'm right by the RAW because of common sense. I say "I think I'm right by the RAW". Then I searched some "common sense text" and I see that they feet with my RAW understanding. Then I say "I'think I'm right by common sense too" If you don't like to use "common sense" just ignore the part about "common sense" I enclosed the RAW discussion between Now let's talk about RAW and only RAW and End of RAW part Just respond to those part... the "common sense" part can be useful for other users that use "common sense" when RAW are ambiguous, but you can freely ignore it... no one can think bad about you for doing so... and if someone do think bad about you for that, well ingore him too ;)
thondar 06-20-07, 10:04 AM	Think about a spell that allow to threat but prevent attack. Your definition go wrong. What mean this? The spell is wrong or your definition is wrong o the spell bring in an exception to rule or an unique case. Same for your spell. You say that threat is a prerequisite to make an AoO, and so you say that if I have AoOs I threat. No exactly. I say that threat is a prerequisite to make an AoO. You say the spell give AoO. To give AoO it has to give threat too. So you threat. It’s a deduction. Not’s possible in my interpretation give AoO but prevent threat. But this is inconsistent with your assumption, cause you are saying that you threaten because you know that you can make AoO, that is, what your opponents are saying all the time here. Again not’s exact. They say that I threat (out of my turn) when I can do AoO. I say that assuming for true that I can do AoO then I threat. But I don’t say that I threat because I can do AoO. i.e: you have got a car so you have a license drive. It don’t mean that to have a license drive you have to own a car. But when i see you driving one i can deduct that. I can be wrong if you broke the law. Same i can be wrong if your spell broke the rules. By your reasoning, you must before know if you threaten, and then you can say that you can make aoOs. Exact. But now you say I can do AoO thanks to spell, so the spell have to give threat too (in my interpretation - and by rules, I add). I'm not challenging you: just try to answer politely, cause I think this is the main point of this debate. Sorry, I don’t want be rude but someone provoke. I think the point is in the definition: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. "even when it is not your action" it's related to threaten or to attack? I have three more questions, if you like: 1) what if this condition allows you to make AoOs during your turn, but not regular attacks? Same as above. If give AoO then give threat too. 2) with the bolded sentence you say that you treaten becasue you recovery the ability to make AoOs: this means that Kalvalastir's and others point is right? Attention. He understood your spell in a peculiar way. He said the spell changed your condition only in your turn, so out of it you can threat normally. You need to be more specific. Use existent spell. Your spell can violate the rule. Basing my reasoning on your reply I could say that even stunned creatures threaten because there's a feat like Unconditional Power. You can attack only when you use it, so generally you can’t attack. Some for remove paralysis. Remember that he said the spell changed your condition only in your turn.
thondar 06-20-07, 10:25 AM	True. But what if you are outside your turn, are falt footed and have no other way (SSwiftness and such) to make an attack? You have no way to make a regular attack, and AoOs are negated. Do you threaten? yes But, what if you don't have them? SS is a spell, and readying an action is a special intiative action. Saying that you threaten with them doesn't mean that you threaten no matter if you use them or not. What if you don't have AoO? Same when you finish your regular attacks. Yes, it's the same. In your interpretation you don't threat anymore. It's not useless, because I know it thank to the second sentence. No, was already clear that you can threat out your turn. Read PHB. As say marcus it negate actions, so negate attack. You already asked for it… don’t repeat please.But I'm asking for a rules based answer. Can you cite the rule the support it? You know that too. I already answered. We are Italian.;) Good joke. So? Actually those 8 times are only in your mind, since I have already showed that they don't contradict me at all. You haven't showed nothing.
Marcus Majarra 06-20-07, 10:38 AM	Ok. Tell me all the ways with you can attack during other's turn. This is somewhat impossible, on account of D&D being an expansive game. In other words, as more rule supplements are published, more options become available. A core example lies in readied actions. While some may perceive it as taking your turn at a later point, such is not the case. Readied actions are unique in that they interrupt another's actions and do happen simultaneously. For example, if you ready an attack against a spellcaster, you're actually interrupting his spellcasting. Thus, if you ready an attack, you're indeed attacking in another's turn. Your change in initiative is merely a side-effect of your readying an action, and only affects your subsequent rounds (since you no longer act during your opponent's turn in later rounds). A rule supplement example is the aforementioned snake's swiftness spell, which allows the target to immediately make an attack. I wouldn't be surprised to see a spell with a casting time of 1 immediate action that allows the caster to attack an opponent either. To ask of me to quote all the ways to attack outside your turn is like asking me to provide you a list of all sorcerer spells. With every new book, this option can expand, as it is not normally inhibited. A more apt question would be to ask to quote where it's stated that AoOs are the only way to attack outside your turn, or where it's stated that any attacks outside your turn follow rules for AoOs. Such is not the case. But what if you are outside your turn, are falt footed and have no other way (SSwiftness and such) to make an attack? You have no way to make a regular attack, and AoOs are negated. Do you threaten? If you're armed and you're not in a condition that prevents you from attacking in general, you do threaten. Not having a way to make a regular attack is like saying that you have no opportunity to do so. It's not the same as stating that you're incapable of attacking. Your ability to attack a square doesn't depend on outside circumstances. These circumstances merely determine whether you'll have the opportunity to do so. Threat is a matter of being a potential menace to an opponent, which is why threat is governed by being armed, within reach, and capable of attacking a square. Sure. But, what if you don't have them? SS is a spell, and readying an action is a special intiative action. Saying that you threaten with them doesn't mean that you threaten no matter if you use them or not. That's just it: you don't threaten with actions. You don't need to act to threaten, otherwise you would only threaten when you act. You just need to be capable of doing so. Not being able to make AoOs doesn't remove the ability to attack; it merely cuts down on the events in which you're likely to do so. Snake's swiftness and readied actions merely give you more opportunities to attack. 1) what if this condition allows you to make AoOs during your turn, but not regular attacks? 2) with the bolded sentence you say that you treaten becasue you recovery the ability to make AoOs: this means that Kalvalastir's and others point is right? 3) what if during your turn you cannot make regular attacks, but can make AoOs? 4) what if during your turn the only attacks you can make are AoOs, and AoOs only? 1) You need to be more clear in your definition of regular attacks. As it is, I frankly don't know what a regular attack is. As far as I can tell, a regular melee attack is an attack with a melee weapon into a square within reach, using your BAB + Str mod to determine which AC you hit. Now, if I interpret your suggestion correctly, this condition makes very little to no sense at all. In any case, if this condition prevents you from attacking during your turn in any way except an AoO, you still threaten during your turn because you are capable of attacking during your turn. 2) To which point are you referring? I can't see a bolded sentence. 3) The answer speaks for itself. If you're unable to attack during your turn, then you do not threaten during your turn. Unless this condition explicitly indicates that you're also forbidden from attacking outside your turn, you still threaten outside your turn. A condition that prevented you from attacking outside your turn, but allowed for you to make AoOs is self-contradictory by definition, since you need to threaten squares to perform AoOs and anything that prevents you from attacking also prevents your ability to threaten. 4) The question is simple: are you able to attack during your turn? If you can make attacks of opportunity, then by definition, you can. You need to be able to attack in order to be able to make AoOs. As such, you threaten. Basing my reasoning on your reply I could say that even stunned creatures threaten because there's a feat like Unconditional Power. This is a very good attempt at breaking the system, but you're concluding too much out of it. Unconditional Power merely allows you manifest a power while in certain conditions. Being able to manifest a power in no way implies that you're also able to make any attack associated with that power. For example, a paralyzed character can manifest psionic powers normally (since these are purely mental actions). However, since he cannot move, he cannot perform any attack associated with his manifesting. He could very well manifest hostile empathic transfer, but would be unable to attack any target with his power. Unconditional Power merely expands on the various conditions you can ignore when manifesting a power (and only when manifesting a power).
Kalvalastir 06-20-07, 10:41 AM	First it doesn't say what you say It say "remember that all the PC's and NPC's actions are occurring simultanously" "intended" isn't a word that appear in this sentence This is the way I intend it ;) :D But I was talking about logic, about "common sense", not RAW, so please respond on the same ground I agree with you on the authors intentions, so there's no discussion on this point. I just pointed out that even the authors knew that common sense differs from the RAW. I stopped to talk about articles or faq since a lot. I only support my opinions with D&D manuals since then All right, I noticed it. At least we have a common ground of discussion. you didn't showed any evidence I'm wrong, only your opinions and your understanding of the rule Yes indeed: in my first post (#97 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12726368&postcount=97)) in this discussion i showed you that the ability to attack differs wether is you turn or not, because the ability of taking actions (any actions, with some exceptions) is depending on Initiative Turns. So saying "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, no matter of turns", is to declare an exception to the normal rule of acting. For me it seems a quite ambiguous exception... in general, exceptions are explicilty declared, in this case they are not: in fact the sentence has two different meanings. Anyway, in case of doubt, I think it's much better to follow the general rule.
Marcus Majarra 06-20-07, 10:50 AM	Yes indeed: in my first post (#97) in this discussion i showed you that the ability to attack differs wether is you turn or not, because the ability of taking actions (any actions, with some exceptions) is depending on Initiative Turns. So saying "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, no matter of turns", is to declare an exception to the normal rule of acting. I don't see it as such. Initiative turns merely give temporal context to actions. The ability to perform an action has nothing to do with its temporal context unless otherwise stated. In the context of threat, I've yet to see a solid argument that prevents the ability to attack as a whole. What I have seen (and from you nonetheless) are some solid exception cases that deserve further insight into the field of flanking, but not with threat in general.
Leilond 06-20-07, 10:51 AM	I agree with you on the authors intentions, so there's no discussion on this point. I just pointed out that even the authors knew that common sense differs from the RAW. RAW are a "rappresentation" of the "common sense". When I feel a rule is "ambiguos", the best thing that you can do is look for the "common sense" that the rule is rapresenting. If the common sense suggest one of the two understanding is better, I chose that one without doubt. If don't feel that a rule is "ambiguous" you go ahead with your understanding without caring about the fact that it is totally against the author intentions. That's the way I use "commone sense". But for what I think, the "intention of the author" can point me out that I'm misunderstanding a rule. Be carefull! Cannot DEMOSTRATE that I'm misunderstanding a rule, but can suggest it, and make me think more deep to see if it is the case. By the way, I separated the "common sense" part of the post, from the "RAW" part, it is not necessary to point out every time "it is commone sense, not RAW", it is obvious Yes indeed: in my first post (#97 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12726368&postcount=97)) in this discussion i showed you that the ability to attack differs wether is you turn or not, because the ability of taking actions (any actions, with some exceptions) is depending on Initiative Turns. Only because you start from the assumption that the sentence "even if it is not your action" has something to do with being able to attack on enemies turns Pratically you say "I demostrate your wrong because if you understand that sentence as I do then you're wrong" A weak point, sorry, this doesn't demostrate nothing. Are you able to speak english? Yes. Are you able to speak english if I close your mouth? Yes. Are you able to speak english if I kick your head making you lose all your memory and you ability to talk? No That's the meaning of the phrase. Are you able to attack while balancing? Yes. Are you able to attack when paralized? No That's all So saying "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, no matter of turns", is to declare an exception to the normal rule of acting. For me it seems a quite ambiguous exception... in general, exceptions are explicilty declared, in this case they are not: in fact the sentence has two different meanings. I don't see any "exception". I see a rule very clerly written that means what I said Anyway, in case of doubt, I think it's much better to follow the general rule. Agree Being able to melee attack, no matter of turn, is enought to threaten. This is the general rule exceptions are explicilty declared Nothing that I said "demostrate" I'm right, nor nothing that I've read demostrated that I'm wrong. I think my understanding is the most choerent, the most logical, the most consistent. That doesn't mean it is
Kalvalastir 06-20-07, 11:13 AM	I don't see it as such. Initiative turns merely give temporal context to actions. The ability to perform an action has nothing to do with its temporal context unless otherwise stated. That's not true: When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) This sencence is extremely clear... you can only perform actions in your turn. Please note that exceptions for acting outside the regular Initiative Turn are explicilty declared. Only because you start from the assumption that the sentence "even if it is not your action" has something to do with being able to attack on enemies turns I'm starting from the general rule of acting. To define the sentence "even when is not your action" you have first to declare WHAT IS an action. And "action" definition comes first in a logical hierarchy. This is the way RAW are working, you know...
Leilond 06-20-07, 11:22 AM	I'm starting from the general rule of acting. To define the sentence "even when is not your action" you have first to declare WHAT IS an action. And "action" definition comes first in a logical hierarchy. This is the way RAW are working, you know... Exactly, but "even if it is not your action" doesn't mean that you must be able to act if it is not your action It means the opposite. It means that you don't need to be able to act when it is not your action, but "even" that means "it is your action or not". That sentences is there for this reason, to not be confused from previous rules. "even if it is not your action", don't worry about that, it isn't a problem You didn't demostrate nothing. You gave an interesting opinion, that perfectly feet your understanding of the rule, it doesn't feet the author intended common sense, but for RAW it isn't important the common sense. By the way I think you misunderstood the RAW, that doesn't mean you did
Kalvalastir 06-20-07, 11:51 AM	Exactly, but "even if it is not your action" doesn't mean that you must be able to act if it is not your action It means the opposite. It means that you don't need to be able to act when it is not your action, but "even" that means "it is your action or not". Exactly what I was saying... in your interpretation, defining a threatened area is an exception to the normal rule of acting (and that's normal, because you read the second part of the sentence as an exception). But the controversial part is ambiguous... you said that, and is quite clear: it has two different interpretations. Anyway, between the two, i find better to choose the one who fit the general rule of acting.
Marcus Majarra 06-20-07, 01:35 PM	Except that you don't need to use an action to attack. Your threatened area is not defined by your ability to act. It's defined by your ability to attack. As such, the "even when it is not your action" clause merely extends the temporal context of your ability to attack beyond your actions (which is basically like saying that it doesn't matter whether you're acting or not).
Leilond 06-20-07, 03:24 PM	Exactly what I was saying... in your interpretation, defining a threatened area is an exception to the normal rule of acting (and that's normal, because you read the second part of the sentence as an exception). You call it "excepiton", i call it a "clear rule" But the controversial part is ambiguous... you said that, and is quite clear: it has two different interpretations. If I said that it was for the hurry of writing. I consider the rule pretty clear work like I already said Anyway, between the two, i find better to choose the one who fit the general rule of acting. If there's a general rule and a specific rul, it isn't simply better to use the specific rule, you MUST use the specific rule By the way, I think the rule about "treathening squares" is simple From Player's Handbook page 135 (english version) During combat, you threaten all squares adjacent to yours, eve when it's not you turn Do you see how it is easier to understand now? It do not talk about attacking at all in this part of the manual. But let's continue An opponent that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provoke an attack of opportunity from you As you can see, it is plain declared that to make an AoO you must threaten a square. Threatening it's a prerequisite for making and AoO, while nowhere in the manual say with this plain words the opposite But let's continue with the PHB An attack of opportunity is a free melee attack that does not use up any of your action But let's see the specific rule for about threatening square, page 137 of the PHB You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everythings in all squares adjacent to your space. An enemy that takes certain action while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attack of opportunity Do youy see? Let's me point out this phrase If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attack of opportunity Do you see the bold part? Being unable to make AoO is the consequence of not threatening. This clearly means that threatening a square is prerequisite for making AoO against that square. You cannot know if you can or cannot make an AoO until you FIRST don't determine if you threaten the square or not. Think now about this Can bobby speak english? You say yes, because you know him and you eared him speaking english Now I put my hand on his mouth. Can bobby speak english? You still say yes, he can speak english very well Now I kick bob head, making him lose his memory and all his speaking ability Can bobby speak english? Well... not anymore The verb "to can" is very strange for us (they use "Can" when we in Italy use "sapere" and "potere"), but in this environment it is pretty clear the meaning I think that the same "meaning" of the word "can" have to be applied to this phrase You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Why? "Even when it is not your action" tell us to read the word "can" that way. That sentence help use to correct use the word "can" Can I attack while "paralized"? No Can I attack while "balancing"? Yes That's all Plain, simple, consistent by the RAW. I've not to care about nothing else, the simpliest way, that it's usually the better one End of RAW part, the rest is common sense Perfectly logical by "common sense" (a fighter that will swing within half a second is a threaten, no matter if it's balancing, his sword will kick my back in half a second) Within the author intentions, as page 24 of the DMG show us
Blackstorm_SK 06-20-07, 07:05 PM	You don't get the point. Your defense is based on ignore the faqs because they aren't rules. It's true, a faq not's a rule but when 8 faqs go against your interpretation (no against a rule) then probably your interpretation is wrong. Against? Lol. Someone take off-guard: he can act, he can defend and attack too but he isn't to his best (how you asked it's logic, no rule). Yeah. Youre off-guard, you can defend or attack. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34806&dict=CALD Definition catch sb off guard to surprise someone by doing something which they are not expecting and are not ready for I must say more? About rules? yes, he can move. Show me that, then. You ask? It don't matter what do you ask. I can quote PHB, if I want and it's not secondary to SRD. First: never said that the phb is secondary to the srd. Second: proof me that phb and srd content is different, regarding rules. Third: when I'm asking for SRD, I'm asking for the rules only, without flavor text. Fourth: I've replied to Leilond that said that srd are secondary to phb, that's not true. Fifth: you can quote phb, but if I ask for rule, you can't quote the flavor text, you must quote the rules. Kalvastir, here I demostrate that the D&D author intended to make action "simultaneous", as you asked me That's not actually true. First, that's not rules. Second, I want to notice you that bolded part: When you play out a combat scene or some other activity, for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PC's and NPC's actions are occurring simultanously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this essential order of play occasionally lead to situation when something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other character have acted in the same round. so, by common sense, yeah, tuns are simultaneous, but in game mechanics are not. This demostrate that the INTENTION of the WOTC is to think actions like they're simultanoeus, or at least separed only by fractions of seconds. It isn't strictly a "Rule", but it can help us to understand the Author intention Yeah,that's clear. But this is common sense. The rules necessarily need to don't make the turns simultaneous... At game mechanics level, you can't make all simultaneous. Otherwise, you cannote say, i.e., that your cleric (init 15) cast a cure spell on the harmed ally, that was just armed by a charging ogre (init 16), 'cause since the turn are simultanous, you can't theoretically see that that your ally is harmed until it happens, that means casting a cure on the next round. Let's go then to the english version of the "Player Handbook" again, Chapter "COMBAT", section "ACTIONS IN COMBAT", subsection "STANDARD ACTIONS", sub-subsection "Attack rolls", page 139 Attack roll[b]: An attack roll [b]represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you manage to connect solidly Represent. Yeah. So, let's say: a a full-round action, like a sorcerer that empower a spell is from when it starts 'till when he get again the init? The rules seems not agree... This can also clarify that the actions that a character make in a round, can be considered that begin at his initiative and finish at the beginning of his next initiative. So I can drink a potion, or move, or do anything else out of my turn? It's still in the round. These aren't properly "rules" and if you want to talk only about rule you can ignore this first part, but I think that these considerations help us to understand better the rules, because we're playing D&D and the things written in the PHB and DMG cannot be simply "ignored", also flavor text can help to understand a rule But this flavor text don't help you so clearly. Now let's talk about RAW and only RAW That means 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten even when it is not your action I can apply the sostitution: 2)You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your action ???? If yes, without commas it condrattict your interpretation. Note: I'm only substituited the threaten with is definition, given from your first statement. Each "adding word" to these aren't "my interpretation of the rule". This and only this is my interpretation, and only with this I can easly manage without any illogical consequence every possible situation that isn't covered by a "specific" or "situational" rule. End of RAW part You claim this is a RAW calling it your interpretation? Hmm... It seems to me you're not so clear in you claim... AoO aren't an issue, nor "regular attack" are Only the "general condition" is You're claiming that for the threaten the attacks, reg or AoOs, aren't an issue? It's clearly contraddict the definition of threaten.
Blackstorm_SK 06-20-07, 07:28 PM	If there's a general rule and a specific rul, it isn't simply better to use the specific rule, you MUST use the specific rule It's not what he said. He said that if an interpretation (not a specific rule) of rule fit the general rules, he prefer to apply the rule this way. By the way, I think the rule about "treathening squares" is simple From Player's Handbook page 135 (english version) During combat, you threaten all squares adjacent to yours, eve when it's not you turn Do you see how it is easier to understand now? It do not talk about attacking at all in this part of the manual.[/quote] Ignoring the definition of threatened area, that anyway involve, btr, tha attacks. As you can see, it is plain declared that to make an AoO you must threaten a square. Threatening it's a prerequisite for making and AoO, while nowhere in the manual say with this plain words the opposite They're influencing each other. Can bobby speak english? You say yes, because you know him and you eared him speaking english Ok, normal situation. Now I put my hand on his mouth. Can bobby speak english? You still say yes, he can speak english very well It depend. You mean now? I mean: he can, but cannot. Now I kick bob head, making him lose his memory and all his speaking ability Can bobby speak english? Well... not anymore Yeah, I kill you, do you threaten anymore? The verb "to can" is very strange for us (they use "Can" when we in Italy use "sapere" and "potere"), but in this environment it is pretty clear the meaning No. It's ambiguous. I think that it's abiguous even for the american or english people. Why? "Even when it is not your action" tell us to read the word "can" that way. That sentence help use to correct use the word "can" Can I attack while "paralized"? No Can I attack while "balancing"? Yes That's all Plain, simple, consistent by the RAW. I've not to care about nothing else, the simpliest way, that it's usually the better one So, keep it. It seems to me that your clarifying post has some bug left, but if you think it's consistent, go with it. The rest is only academical discussion. Within the author intentions, as page 24 of the DMG show us The common sense intention is clear even w/o the dmg.
Kalvalastir 06-21-07, 03:29 AM	You call it "excepiton", i call it a "clear rule" In your way, it's an exception to the normal rule of acting, like a Quickened spell is an exception to the normal way of casting a spell. It doesn't matter if you see that works correctly or not, since Quickened spells works correctly, while they are, in fact, exceptions. If I said that it was for the hurry of writing. The rule IS ambiguous. You repeated it many times in your previous posts, so there's no hurry to excuse you. You cant' simply deny it ;) you wouldn't not be honest...
Leilond 06-21-07, 03:59 AM	In your way, it's an exception to the normal rule of acting, like a Quickened spell is an exception to the normal way of casting a spell. It doesn't matter if you see that works correctly or not, since Quickened spells works correctly, while they are, in fact, exceptions. The rule IS ambiguous. You repeated it many times in your previous posts, so there's no hurry to excuse you. You cant' simply deny it ;) you wouldn't not be honest... Sorry, you are misunderstanding (I hope without wanting it) me. Every rule that is understood in two different ways is ambiguous... But I do not consider it so I think that is PRETTY CLEAR. I'm totally honest, and you know very well. I said like 100 times that I think you're wrong. That's not actually true. First, that's not rules. Second, I want to notice you that bolded part: ... so, by common sense, yeah, tuns are simultaneous, but in game mechanics are not. ... Yeah,that's clear. But this is common sense. The rules necessarily need to don't make the turns simultaneous... At game mechanics level, you can't make all simultaneous. Otherwise, you cannote say, i.e., that your cleric (init 15) cast a cure spell on the harmed ally, that was just armed by a charging ogre (init 16), 'cause since the turn are simultanous, you can't theoretically see that that your ally is harmed until it happens, that means casting a cure on the next round. ... Represent. Yeah. So, let's say: a a full-round action, like a sorcerer that empower a spell is from when it starts 'till when he get again the init? The rules seems not agree... PLEASE! That part was inside a "common sense" discussion. Please reply with common sense to common sense. If you don't mind common sense you can ignore the "common sense part" but it is pretesuous to answer with "rule" to a common sense discussion I divided the post into sections 1) Common sense section 2) RAW section Please respond on each section on the same ground If you don't mind "common sense" you can respond only to "RAW" part, but it isn't correct to respond with RAW to common sense So I can drink a potion, or move, or do anything else out of my turn? It's still in the round. RAW There are a lot of things you can make during opponent turn. You only pointed those you cannot do, but you didn't pointed those you can do. And most of all "treathening a square" isn't an action at all, so it is not correct to use "action" rules But this flavor text don't help you so clearly. Common sense You're asking to me. I respond. It isn't my interest to make you change yuor mind. It is my interest that you understand me. Did you understand me? It isn't important if you agree or not. I'm not here to make you agree with me, only to make we understand each other I can apply the sostitution: 2)You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your action ???? If yes, without commas it condrattict your interpretation. Note: I'm only substituited the threaten with is definition, given from your first statement. Please You changed my wording of the rule, so it is not my interpretation. I cannot comment something that I didn't write You claim this is a RAW calling it your interpretation? Hmm... It seems to me you're not so clear in you claim... RAW Come on! You know PERFECTLY what I mean... but if you prefer I can say like this You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That's the rule and it's pretty clear. Do you prefer that I say like that? I reword the rule only to clarify YOU how I think it works. I perfectly understand how it work without rewording it, but to make you understand me I need to reword it, because you understand that sentence in a different way I repeat myself ------------- The sentence You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Is perfectly clear for me, and I do not need to reword it in noway to directly and immediately understand that the rule let me threaten a square if I cannot make an AoO in that square. If you want I can reword it to let you understand what I understand, but I don't need to do so to understand what I already understand If you let me reword the sentences of the manual, explain the meaning of some sentences, to clarify you what I understand from these sentences we can continue. If me and you cannot reword nor explain the rules we read, we cannot write nothing, only quote rules that we understand in two different ways, without understanding eachother t depend. You mean now? I mean: he can, but cannot. RAW It isn't important "now". "Even if it is not your action" say us that it isn't an issue to be considered Yeah, I kill you, do you threaten anymore? Please I didn't talked about killing, only to take you away the speaking abilities No. It's ambiguous. I think that it's abiguous even for the american or english people. RAW interpretation Exactly. For this reason they added "even when it is not your action", to clarify that you threaten no matter of the action I will bring my umbrella, even if it isn't going to rain It means that I will bring my umbrell, no matter of the weather. It can be a rainy day, there can be snow, an urricane, sunshine... I will bring the umbrella with me So, keep it. It seems to me that your clarifying post has some bug left, but if you think it's consistent, go with it. The rest is only academical discussion. RAW You understand that sentence in a different way. It is obvious that you se bug where I see no one and where I think there isn't any bug The common sense intention is clear even w/o the dmg. Common sense And? P.S. If you don't mind common sense, you can totally ignore the sections under the "common sense" title If you mind "common sense", please respond on the same ground. Do not respond with "RAW" in a common sense discussion... it creates only confusion
Kalvalastir 06-21-07, 04:42 AM	Sorry, you are misunderstanding (I hope without wanting it) me. Every rule that is understood in two different ways is ambiguous... But I do not consider it so I think that is PRETTY CLEAR. I'm totally honest, and you know very well. I said like 100 times that I think you're wrong. You said like 100 times that you think the two interpretations are equally correct, because of the abiguity of the second part of the sentence. Do you really want me to quote you? Now be honest, please...
Leilond 06-21-07, 05:42 AM	You said like 100 times that you think the two interpretations are equally correct, because of the abiguity of the second part of the sentence. Do you really want me to quote you? Now be honest, please... I don't want to go OT, so I give you this point, because it really doesn't matter Is the sentence ambiguos? YES Well, which interpretation to use? The one that better feet the rest of the game. I think mine is the best, by the RAW, by the common sense, by the authors intentions But let's immagine for a moment that the two interpretation are COMPLETELY equivalent by the RAW Which one do I chose? Between two correct interpretation I will chose the one that better feet the "common sense" and "author intentions" So I think mine is the correct one I think mine is better by the RAW as a whole, staying better with all the rule I think mine is better by common sense I think mine is better by authors intentions No one showed me any proof that I'm wrong, nor by the RAW, nor by the common sense, nor by the authors intentions Keep your, I'll keep mine I don't want to make you change your mind. I'm satisfied to know that you understood me When you'll be tired to try to make me change my mind we can stop all this. Pheraps you can make me change my mind, but till now you didn't say nothing that make it happens
thondar 06-21-07, 10:56 AM	catch sb off guard to surprise someone by doing something which they are not expecting and are not ready for I must say more? Yes. Where do it say that you can’t defend or attack? Show me that, then. ok: A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren’t speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. proof me that phb and srd content is different, regarding rules. Don’t ignore my question. There’s not a rule sign before the rules so how do you define a rule? I.e: PHB pg 5 What character can do – Skill check: to make a skill check, roll a d20 etc… It’s a rule? Why? Fifth: you can quote phb, but if I ask for rule, you can't quote the flavor text, you must quote the rules. I can use flavor text to explain a rule that you misunderstood. But this is common sense. The rules necessarily need to don't make the turns simultaneous... At game mechanics level, you can't make all simultaneous. But when They do a rule they can remember that turns in concret are simultaneous. That means 1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 2) You threaten even when it is not your action I can apply the sostitution: 2)You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your action ???? Even is related to threaten before and after your sostitution. 1) You eat all food you can reach 2) You eat even when you is not hungry => You eat all food you can reach even when you is not hungry Even is related to eat. Note: I'm only substituited the threaten with is definition, given from your first statement. No, you’re doing another silly wordplay…
Blackstorm_SK 06-21-07, 03:46 PM	Sorry, you are misunderstanding (I hope without wanting it) me. Every rule that is understood in two different ways is ambiguous... But I do not consider it so I think that is PRETTY CLEAR. I'm totally honest, and you know very well. I said like 100 times that I think you're wrong. Hmmm... I remember your posts in the italian forum: you've said exactly that this rule is ambiguous. PLEASE! That part was inside a "common sense" discussion. Please reply with common sense to common sense. If you don't mind common sense you can ignore the "common sense part" but it is pretesuous to answer with "rule" to a common sense discussion I divided the post into sections 1) Common sense section 2) RAW section Please respond on each section on the same ground If you don't mind "common sense" you can respond only to "RAW" part, but it isn't correct to respond with RAW to common sense Sorry, I wasn't intended to mix the two. But, as the common sense says that the actions are considered simultaneous every round, in the game mechanics they are not. I cannot ignoring the rules speaking only of common sense, since the rules needs a non-simultaneousity status. RAW There are a lot of things you can make during opponent turn. You only pointed those you cannot do, but you didn't pointed those you can do. And most of all "treathening a square" isn't an action at all, so it is not correct to use "action" rules Can you make me an example of what kind of actions you can do out of your turn (ST aren't an action, just in case :)) Common sense You're asking to me. I respond. It isn't my interest to make you change yuor mind. It is my interest that you understand me. Did you understand me? It isn't important if you agree or not. I'm not here to make you agree with me, only to make we understand each other I understand you, only I can't find it coherent... I'm asking for some clarification. Please You changed my wording of the rule, so it is not my interpretation. I cannot comment something that I didn't write What? This is funny. You in first instance have chenged the wording of the rules. I'm doing the same, with a logical and legal substitution. Btw, take it from more far. Based on your wording, can you give a definition of threatened area? Watch out: I'm not asking when you threaten (intended as the temporal instant), but I'm asking what is the threaten. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That's the rule and it's pretty clear. Do you prefer that I say like that? I reword the rule only to clarify YOU how I think it works. I perfectly understand how it work without rewording it, but to make you understand me I need to reword it, because you understand that sentence in a different way But anyway you changed the wording, claiming it is equivalent. So I've decided to play with your rules. RAW It isn't important "now". "Even if it is not your action" say us that it isn't an issue to be considered If you cover the mouth of bobby, and you ask me: "Can bobby speak English?", you can't claim that's no matter if you intend now or in generale, because the question itself isn't specific enough: I can understand your question as "can he speak now?" or "can he speak in general?" as well. [quote]Please I didn't talked about killing, only to take you away the speaking abilities Right. So I change my answer: yes, bobby can speak english, if he learn it again. So? RAW interpretation Exactly. For this reason they added "even when it is not your action", to clarify that you threaten no matter of the action I will bring my umbrella, even if it isn't going to rain It means that I will bring my umbrell, no matter of the weather. It can be a rainy day, there can be snow, an urricane, sunshine... I will bring the umbrella with me It's not the right example. This is somewhat impossible, on account of D&D being an expansive game. In other words, as more rule supplements are published, more options become available. Sorry, you're right. A little change: can you list me all the ways, considering only the base srd? A core example lies in readied actions. While some may perceive it as taking your turn at a later point, such is not the case. Readied actions are unique in that they interrupt another's actions and do happen simultaneously. Not quite: if you ready an action, your initiative count change, so you effectively postpone your turn at a later point. And after the readied action, your initiative is set to 1 point above the init of the charachter that have triggered the action. Again, you make the readied action, btr, before the action that triggered it. So, it seems to me a not adeguate example. For example, if you ready an attack against a spellcaster, you're actually interrupting his spellcasting. Thus, if you ready an attack, you're indeed attacking in another's turn. Your change in initiative is merely a side-effect of your readying an action, and only affects your subsequent rounds (since you no longer act during your opponent's turn in later rounds). Hmmm... but your attack, btr, is coming before the action that triggered it. A more apt question would be to ask to quote where it's stated that AoOs are the only way to attack outside your turn, or where it's stated that any attacks outside your turn follow rules for AoOs. Such is not the case. A readied action, even if you would consider it in such way, involve a regular attack (intended as attacks that you make during your turn). 3) The answer speaks for itself. If you're unable to attack during your turn, then you do not threaten during your turn. Unless this condition explicitly indicates that you're also forbidden from attacking outside your turn, you still threaten outside your turn. Ok, let's say, if in a certain situation you can make only AoOs, you threaten or not? Wantch out, I'm not saying nothing of spells or similar. Only let's imagine a situation in wich your only kind attack are the AoOs for that turn. Do you threaten? [quote] Originally Posted by blackstorm catch sb off guard to surprise someone by doing something which they are not expecting and are not ready for I must say more? Yes. Where do it say that you can’t defend or attack? Hey, we're talking of common sense. This is not an attack or defend question: I've asked you a "common sense" example of "not totally ready" person. From the definition of catching sb off-guard, it says not ready. Period. Not "not totally ready", it says not ready. It's the quote: Oh. Make me an example of "not totally ready for battle". In the real life, please. Someone take off-guard: he can act, he can defend and attack too but he isn't to his best (how you asked it's logic, no rule). I asked logic, you give me logic, and you failed. But maybe you want to claim that the cambridge dictionary is not part of the dnd rules... Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren’t speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. Wow. I've never had a master that allow me to make a 5 foot step out of my turn when I'm in combat and I'm w/o feats like great cleave. Lucky boy if your master let you to do. (Then I'm the one who make wordplay, yeah? Naughty boy.) Don’t ignore my question. There’s not a rule sign before the rules so how do you define a rule? Actually you are the one who ignore my question: can you proof that srd and phb have different rules? Yes or no. It's simple. I.e: PHB pg 5 What character can do – Skill check: to make a skill check, roll a d20 etc… It’s a rule? Why? Hmmm... PHB playtesters list page: it's a rule? Why? I can use flavor text to explain a rule that you misunderstood. If I ask for rule, you give me the rules. When I want flavor text, I'll write it. But when They do a rule they can remember that turns in concret are simultaneous. In game mechanics are not simultaneous: If you're a cleric with init 15, and an ogre (init 16) charge your teammate figher(init 14), you cannot cast a cure on him, yeah? The turns are simultaneosu, after all. You can't see if the ogre hit or not your teammate, and since the charge is a special full round action, you cannot see if you're teammate is harmed or not untill the end of the turn, if you're claiming that the turns are simultaneous. Again, what about a sorcerer that casts an empowered fireball and one that casts a summon monster? If you want the turns simultaneous, wouldn't be difference between them. Even is related to threaten before and after your sostitution. 1) You eat all food you can reach 2) You eat even when you is not hungry => You eat all food you can reach even when you is not hungry Even is related to eat. Totally sure? So why you don't want to make me this substitution, claimng it's a wording change or a wordplay?
Leilond 06-21-07, 04:37 PM	Sorry, I wasn't intended to mix the two. But, as the common sense says that the actions are considered simultaneous every round, in the game mechanics they are not. I cannot ignoring the rules speaking only of common sense, since the rules needs a non-simultaneousity status. Please I did it... why aren't you able to do the same? Can you make me an example of what kind of actions you can do out of your turn (ST aren't an action, just in case ) RAW You can do these things during opponent turns 1) Cast the feather fall spell 2) Prepared action. I can prepare an action to interrupt a spell. You move, then cast... I will act after your move action, before your standard action, just in the plain middle of your turn There are others, I leave them as homework for you ;) I understand you, only I can't find it coherent... I'm asking for some clarification. Please Not when you make me a question that you already know the answer What? This is funny. You in first instance have chenged the wording of the rules. I'm doing the same, with a logical and legal substitution. Please! There's a big difference between what I did and what you did I changed the word to explain you what I think You changed the word saying that it was what I said You can freely reword a rule to clarify me your understanding of a rule You cannot do it and claim it is what I think Btw, take it from more far. Based on your wording, can you give a definition of threatened area? Watch out: I'm not asking when you threaten (intended as the temporal instant), but I'm asking what is the threaten. Rules The threatened area is the set of all the threatened squares But anyway you changed the wording, claiming it is equivalent. So I've decided to play with your rules. Don't play dumb Wrong. I didn't changed the word saying it is equivalent. I changed the word to explain you my understanding You, instead, changed the word and claim that it was my understanding. It isn't the same things, no way If you want to reword a rule, do it to explain your understanding of a rule, and do not claim that it represent my understanding, because you cannot read my mind and you cannot know if your rewording represent my mind If you cover the mouth of bobby, and you ask me: "Can bobby speak English?", you can't claim that's no matter if you intend now or in generale, because the question itself isn't specific enough: I can understand your question as "can he speak now?" or "can he speak in general?" as well. Right. So I change my answer: yes, bobby can speak english, if he learn it again? Common sense Sorry, I thought my example was clear.. it wasn't, sorry, i give you this point, bad example, didn't helped us to understand each other It's not the right example. Common sense I think it is to clarify the meaning of the "even" word in the english language, at least the meaning that I understand in the rule context Sorry, you're right. A little change: can you list me all the ways, considering only the base srd? RAW I play D&D and not SRD. In D&D, three core manuals, there are at least TWO action that can be performed during opponent turns Go up this post a bit if you ready an action, your initiative count change, so you effectively postpone your turn at a later point. Wrong. You can make a move action and then prepare an action. You turn END there. Stop. The initiative count change is only a conseguence. The manuals don't say "your turn change". The manual say that your action will be completed in that moment. RAW, not opinions I can prepare an action that interrupt your spell. You make your move action, then you cast the spell... The action I prepared (during my turn) will come in play during your turn, between your move action and your standard action Hmmm... but your attack, btr, is coming before the action that triggered it. RAW That can be after the move action. So just between your move action and your standard action. Perfectly in the middle of your turn A readied action, even if you would consider it in such way, involve a regular attack (intended as attacks that you make during your turn). RAW Where is it written please? Nowhere is written that the action "prepared" is considered tone "in your turn". It is performed during othere creatures turn. Read page 160 of the english version of the player handbook ---------------------- The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has become PLAYER'S HANDBOOK, PAGE 160 ---------------------- The action, as declared in the manual, take place "after your turn is over but before your next has become". Nothing is more "out of your turn than this" Ok, let's say, if in a certain situation you can make only AoOs, you threaten or not? Wantch out, I'm not saying nothing of spells or similar. Only let's imagine a situation in wich your only kind attack are the AoOs for that turn. Do you threaten? There's a problem in your question. Threatening is a prerequisite for making AoO. If you do not threaten you cannot make AoO. So you MUST threaten in advance to have the situation you describe. Hey, we're talking of common sense. This is not an attack or defend question: I've asked you a "common sense" example of "not totally ready" person. From the definition of catching sb off-guard, it says not ready. Common sense Not ready doesn't mean, unable to move, nor unable to attack, nor less a danger for his enemy. Simple not ready. Commone sense When I'm flat-footed I'm not ready, but I'm not paralized, I'm active moving, not as well as I could because I'm not ready If I ask for rule, you give me the rules. When I want flavor text, I'll write it. We don't need your request to quote flavor text. We're not here to respond to your order. If we think that giving you a flavor text can help you to understand us we will give it to you. Just ignore them, but a sentence like this is really really rude Be polite pliease, and if you're not interested in flavor text or common sense, you can easly stop commenting those part. This is a public forum, wher WE ALL discuss everyone using the word and the quotes we feel adeguate. Totally sure? So why you don't want to make me this substitution, claimng it's a wording change or a wordplay? Because your rewording represent your interpretation of the rule How can you really ask me or anyone else to change HIS wording in YOUR way? That's really silly! I reword a phrase to make you understand me. You reword a phrase to make me understand you. Noone can reword a phrase and claim it represent another person ideas. It is absurd Your rewordings don't represent our understanding of the rule, it isn't noway near what we think. Why have I to make our interpretation work with your rewording? It obviously won't because it isn't ours
Blackstorm_SK 06-21-07, 06:59 PM	Please I did it... why aren't you able to do the same? I don't know. I only know that I can't. At least now. Rules The threatened area is the set of all the threatened squares Ok. Now, what is a threatened square? RAW I play D&D and not SRD. Oh, you then. You know, nobody of you have yet prooved me that the cores and the SRD have two different sets of rules. Before continue to whine about the "I-play-DnD-not-SRD" stuff, give me the proof that SRD aren't the same rules set of the cores. The action, as declared in the manual, take place "after your turn is over but before your next has become". Nothing is more "out of your turn than this" Wow. So turns are not simulataneous. As I said. There's a problem in your question. Threatening is a prerequisite for making AoO. If you do not threaten you cannot make AoO. So you MUST threaten in advance to have the situation you describe. No prob, indeed. I'm asking you if I threaten, if you know that I cannot attack in no other way than AoOs. If you say that's in such situation I cannot make AoOs, it's ok for me. Common sense Not ready doesn't mean, unable to move, nor unable to attack, nor less a danger for his enemy. Simple not ready. Commone sense So I suppose that a flowerpot falling from 3rd floor and taking your head 'cause your off-guard catch you "not totally ready", yeah? Not ready means means that your not ready to attack/defend/cast/move/whatever. We don't need your request to quote flavor text. We're not here to respond to your order. You misunderstood my request. If I ask for rules, and you give me the flavor text, something is wrong. If you want to quote flavor text do it. But if I'm asking for rule, I want at least rule and flavor text, not only flavor text. Get it? If we think that giving you a flavor text can help you to understand us we will give it to you. Just ignore them, but a sentence like this is really really rude It was intend to be rude, since when I've asked for rules, I give in return only flavor text. And it seems not fair to me. I repeat, if I ask for rule and you quote rules and flavor text, it's ok, but if you quote only flavor text, it's not fair, since I'm asking for rules. Because your rewording represent your interpretation of the rule Yeah, but thondar says that's no difference (and don't ask why I'm refer to thondar, since you're replying even at replies that involved him.), so, why I cannot use it?
Marcus Majarra 06-22-07, 12:27 AM	Sorry, you're right. A little change: can you list me all the ways, considering only the base srd? Again, what purpose would this serve? These ways are not exclusive. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the ways to attack outside your turn depend on AoO rules. Just because the rules mention two ways of getting from A to B doesn't imply that there aren't more ways of getting from A to B or that the same rules apply to these other ways. Not quite: if you ready an action, your initiative count change, so you effectively postpone your turn at a later point. And after the readied action, your initiative is set to 1 point above the init of the charachter that have triggered the action. Again, you make the readied action, btr, before the action that triggered it. So, it seems to me a not adeguate example. Actually, not quite. Your initiative changes as a result of your triggered action taking place, not of postponing your turn. The changes in initiative don't apply to your readied action, since you're not taking your turn at that point (you're merely making an action outside your normal turn). What you're referring to is delaying your turn, which is a completely different mechanic. Readied actions generally occur before the action that triggered them, except when your triggered action is part of another's activities, in which case you interrupt the other character (PHB160). Hmmm... but your attack, btr, is coming before the action that triggered it. Actually, the attack is interrupting the other action, which implies that the other action has already begun. Your readied attack is merely resolved prior to the action that triggered it. A readied action, even if you would consider it in such way, involve a regular attack (intended as attacks that you make during your turn). There is no such thing as a regular attack. The closest thing to a regular attack is the attack action (a standard action). Even so, being able to take an attack action in no way governs being able to attack. Rather, it's the other way around: it's your ability to attack that determines whether or not you can take the attack action (or any other action involving an attack, such as the full attack action, the charge action, casting any spell involving an attack, etc.). This is why I feel the entire "regular attack" point is moot. You're essentially having threat depending on attacks of opportunity and standard attacks (and arbitrarily deciding that these two types of attack are "regular attacks"), when this is clearly not the case. Ok, let's say, if in a certain situation you can make only AoOs, you threaten or not? Wantch out, I'm not saying nothing of spells or similar. Only let's imagine a situation in wich your only kind attack are the AoOs for that turn. Do you threaten? Yes you do. In order to make AoOs, you need to be able to make attacks. If you're able to make attacks, by definition, you threaten. Just because certain action types are restricted to you doesn't mean you cannot attack. Again, attacking doesn't depend on your ability to take certain actions. It's taking certain actions that depends on your ability to attack. A nauseated character cannot charge, make a standard attack, make a full attack, deliver a touch spell, or even make attacks of opportunity because he can't attack (as per the nauseated condition). As such, he doesn't threaten. If you can find it somewhere in the book that indicates when you cannot attack as a whole, you'll find where you don't threaten.
Leilond 06-22-07, 03:12 AM	I don't know. I only know that I can't. At least now. How can you talk about rule-lawyering if you aren't able to separe commone sense from written rules? Now I understand a lot of things Ok. Now, what is a threatened square? Are you serious? Again? Ok, here you are Theatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. That is what I say since the beginning Oh, you then. You know, nobody of you have yet prooved me that the cores and the SRD have two different sets of rules. Before continue to whine about the "I-play-DnD-not-SRD" stuff, give me the proof that SRD aren't the same rules set of the cores. The three core manuls, go more and more deep in the rules, with lots of explanation and rewording that aren't in tht SRD. For this reason I will always prefer to go on the manuals instead of the SRD. The SRD is a usefull tool, but it isn't an offical rule source for D&D, in anyway If you do not own the english manuals, you have to trust me when I quote some passages giving you the page. If you don't trust me, we can stop talkin right now Wow. So turns are not simulataneous. As I said. And as I said too The actions are considered simultaneous by common sense and by the author intentions. They're represented by the rules in turns, for simplicity. I know you aren't able to separe common sense from RAW (as you said), so you cannot understand this difference No prob, indeed. I'm asking you if I threaten, if you know that I cannot attack in no other way than AoOs. If you say that's in such situation I cannot make AoOs, it's ok for me. You don't understand (or don't want to) that the question is wronged pointed To determine if you can do an AoO against a target the rules require that you FIRST determine if you threaten that target. This means there are two possibility 1) You threaten. Thus the situation you point can exist, but you already know you threaten 2) You don't threaten. Thus the situation you point cannot exist. As you see, the question you make is totally inconsistent, because you have to FIRST determine if you threaten some square, and only after that you'll know if you can do AoO You cannot use AoO to determine if you threaten or not. So, show me the situation your talkin about and I'll give you an answer For instance You drink a potion. You cannot attack during your turn but you threaten, because drinking a potion doesn't take out your "ability to attack as a whole", only the opportunity to do in this moment. So I suppose that a flowerpot falling from 3rd floor and taking your head 'cause your off-guard catch you "not totally ready", yeah? Not ready means means that your not ready to attack/defend/cast/move/whatever. You understanding, not mine. You say that, not the manual You misunderstood my request. If I ask for rules, and you give me the flavor text, something is wrong. If you want to quote flavor text do it. But if I'm asking for rule, I want at least rule and flavor text, not only flavor text. Get it? ... It was intend to be rude, since when I've asked for rules, I give in return only flavor text. And it seems not fair to me. I repeat, if I ask for rule and you quote rules and flavor text, it's ok, but if you quote only flavor text, it's not fair, since I'm asking for rules. When someone point me that I was rude I usually say "Sorry" Trying to justify why you where right to be rude is even more rude Yeah, but thondar says that's no difference (and don't ask why I'm refer to thondar, since you're replying even at replies that involved him.), so, why I cannot use it? Sorry, talk with thondar then I notice that you totally didn't talk about the fact that I pointed you at least two way to act during opponent turns whithout AoO. By the way, it isn't necessary that you do it, because the rule say us that it isn't important to "attack during the opponent turn" to threaten him
Egres 06-22-07, 03:21 AM	Think about a spell that allow to threat but prevent attack. Your definition go wrong. What mean this? The spell is wrong or your definition is wrong o the spell bring in an exception to rule or an unique case. This an excpetion, that has nothing to do with Psion_3 example. Try again. Again not’s exact. They say that I threat (out of my turn) when I can do AoO. I say that assuming for true that I can do AoO then I threat. But I don’t say that I threat because I can do AoO. But you say that you threat after knowing that you can make AoO. Welcome to the apparent loop world. i.e: you have got a car so you have a license drive. It don’t mean that to have a license drive you have to own a car. But when i see you driving one i can deduct that. I can be wrong if you broke the law. Same i can be wrong if your spell broke the rules. Actually, the first statement is false, so you entire example falls. Having a car doesn't necessarily mean that I a license to drive Originally Posted by psion By your reasoning, you must before know if you threaten, and then you can say that you can make aoOs. Exact. But now you say I can do AoO thanks to spell, so the spell have to give threat too (in my interpretation - and by rules, I add). Nope. The spell simply adds the abilyt to make AoOs, and you arbitrarily add that he also adds threane. Admit that you obtaining the same result your opponents are obtaining. Apparent loop. Same as above. If give AoO then give threat too. Same as above. You are looping. Attention. He understood your spell in a peculiar way. He said the spell changed your condition only in your turn, so out of it you can threat normally. You need to be more specific. Use existent spell. Your spell can violate the rule. This spell doesn't violate any rule. You can attack only when you use it, so generally you can’t attack. Some for remove paralysis. Remember that he said the spell changed your condition only in your turn. Yes, but unfportunately that feat shows that even stunned creatures would always threaten by your reasoning. In fact, since it removes the fact that you can never attack, and since you say that it doesn't matter if you can't attack in a particular timeframe, with this feat you always threaten even if stunned. Deal with it. But, what if you don't have them? SS is a spell, and readying an action is a special intiative action. Saying that you threaten with them doesn't mean that you threaten no matter if you use them or not. What if you don't have AoO? No reply here. Interesting. Yes, it's the same. In your interpretation you don't threat anymore. Nice. So, you didn't understand my interpretation at all. My god... You know that too. I already answered. No, you didn't, as this reply shows. Good joke. So? We act in a different way. You have no experience on these boards: deal with it. You haven't showed nothing. Because yoiu didn't read my posts. P.S.: did you notice that Marcus is starting to differentiate his position from yours? He states that the RotG bit about invisiblle flankers is right. As usual, your position is alawsy debated even by those that should agree With you. That tells you nothing? Other replys in the afternoon.
Marcus Majarra 06-22-07, 08:35 AM	P.S.: did you notice that Marcus is starting to differentiate his position from yours? Not that I have anything against Leilond, I'm not concerned with his position or how it relates to mine. I barely have enough time to address discussion points in which I'm involved, so I can't start reading everything Leilond has to say. And I didn't say that the RotG bit about invisible flankers was right. Strict RAW, invisible flankers are legitimate. I merely recommend the use of the unofficial rule presented in the RotG because I find it good, given the way threat works (and it actually coincides pretty well with the way I've been presenting the threat rules). In any case, please don't use me as a reference to dismiss Leilond's points. This isn't a two-sided battle. It's a discussion, and you should concentrate on addressing his points, rather than correlate his statements with those of other community members.
thondar 06-22-07, 09:48 AM	your initiative is set to 1 point above the init of the charachter that have triggered the action. Where do you find that? It’s to same initiative. I've asked you a "common sense" example of "not totally ready" person. From the definition of catching sb off-guard, it says not ready. Period. Not "not totally ready", it says not ready. No. It say "not ready for" It mean not ready for that action. It’s different from not ready. Anyway, if you think so then think about somebody not totally catch off guard: he’s not totally ready. In fact you don’t need an example of "not totally ready" person: the meaning is clear. Or are you saying that it’s impossible to be not totally ready? Maybe you are wordplaying again… So I suppose that a flowerpot falling from 3rd floor and taking your head 'cause your off-guard catch you "not totally ready", yeah? That flowerpot hits my head because i was below the windows unaware of it. Wow. I've never had a master that allow me to make a 5 foot step out of my turn when I'm in combat and I'm w/o feats like great cleave. Lucky boy if your master let you to do. (Then I'm the one who make wordplay, yeah? Naughty boy.) Who speaked about a 5 foot step? I’m doing wordplay? Read again: Leilond: So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally Blackstorm: You can move when it's not your turn? thondar: Yes. You can’t take a move action, but you can move. And he’s speaking about logic. Blackstorm: And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? thondar: When someone speaks about rules you speak about logic and when someone speaks about logic you speak about rules… Move, what move? An action move? No can’t generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn’t speak about an action move and you know that. Blackstorm: Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? thondar: I repeat too. he's speaking about logic, not rule. So yes you can move. About rules? yes, he can move. Blackstorm: Show me that, then. thondar: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren’t speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. I was clear saying I don't speak about a move action! So who’s making wordplay? You! Another time. Actually you are the one who ignore my question: can you proof that srd and phb have different rules? Yes or no. It's simple. Neither. PHB have more rules and better explained. What's your problem? Why i can't quote PHB? If I ask for rule, you give me the rules. When I want flavor text, I'll write it. When you misunderstood a rule I give flavor test, too. No problem: it’s free. But when they do a rule they can remember that turns in concret are simultaneous.In game mechanics are not simultaneous. I had say in concret. When they do a rule they think to game mechanics but they think to the reality too. So, by logic, when you can attack in your turn you threat all round (except exceptions) because turns, in logic, are simultaneous. By raw you threaten all round because rules say this. 1) You eat all food you can reach 2) You eat even when you is not hungry => You eat all food you can reach even when you is not hungry Even is related to eat. Totally sure? Of course. You can add anything between eat and even but if even was related to eat before it has to be related to eat after your insertion. Otherwise you changed the meaning. So why you don't want to make me this substitution, claimng it's a wording change or a wordplay? [...] Yeah, but thondar says that's no difference, so, why I cannot use it? Because with my wording the rule is clear, with your is ambiguos and let you free to make your wordplays. You in first instance have chenged the wording of the rules. I'm doing the same, with a logical and legal substitution Logical and legal? Yes, but only if you think even related to threaten as was before.
Kalvalastir 06-22-07, 10:58 AM	Can I ask all Italian writers to try to express themselves in a more correct English form? I find it hard to follow a discussion in English, where I find phrases like: "It’s to same initiative." (i.e. They have the same Initiative score) "I had say in concret. " (i.e. I said "in concrete terms") "You eat even when you is not hungry" (i.e. You can eat even when you're not hungry) Write less, write better. Thank you.
Leilond 06-22-07, 11:10 AM	Can I ask all Italian writers to try to express themselves in a more correct English form? I find it hard to follow a discussion in English, where I find phrases like: "It’s to same initiative." (i.e. They have the same Initiative score) "I had say in concret. " (i.e. I said "in concrete terms") "You eat even when you is not hungry" (i.e. You can eat even when you're not hungry) Write less, write better. Thank you. Can I ask you to understand that english isn't the first language for Italian writers? Can I ask you to do some more efforts to understand us? I cannot express myself better than this. If it isn't enought you can ignore me... But please, don't play dumb. You can declare that you don't agree with our points and stop posting if you haven't nothing better to say... but trying to discredit us with a post like this is really poor. Have you something better to say about the thread? Are you tired to "try to make us change our mind"? Tell me when you're tired, because before or then, I need to make some question about your understanding... We passed nearly 10 page to explain you our understanding of the rule (only on this forum), but I hadn't the opportunity to better understand some points of your. But FIRST I want to be sure that you don't need to talk about mine anymore... because otherwise it will end in a big caos P.S. I'm terribly sorry for my poor english... I hope it won't make you crazy to read my post
Kalvalastir 06-22-07, 11:45 AM	But please, don't play dumb. You can declare that you don't agree with our points and stop posting if you haven't nothing better to say... but trying to discredit us with a post like this is really poor. For your information, I'm not trying to discredit anyone. I'm interested about this discussion and since I find it difficult to read, it would be nice to try to express correctly. Even my english is not perfect, I'm only asking just to try. The phrases above are a complete mess... :rolleyes: I think you do agree... We passed nearly 10 page to explain you our understanding of the rule (only on this forum), but I hadn't the opportunity to better understand some points of your. Just ask and we will answer... :rolleyes:
thondar 06-22-07, 12:09 PM	Think about a spell that allow to threat but prevent attack. This an excpetion, that has nothing to do with Psion_3 example. No. It’s my example. I say that assuming for true that I can do AoO then I threat. But I don’t say that I threat because I can do AoO. But you say that you threat after knowing that you can make AoO. I think it’s clear what I’m saying. How can I know if I can do AoO if I don’t know if I can threat? I can not. But assuming for true that I can do AoO then necessarily I threat because i can do AoO only if i threat. It’s a deduction. Welcome to the apparent loop world. The loop is in your interpretation and it isn’t apparent. The spell simply adds the abilyt to make AoOs, and you arbitrarily add that he also adds threane. Off course because you need threat to make AoO. If the spell don’t give threat then the spell broke a rule. I assume that the spell don’t broke any rule, so it give threat too. Yes, but unfportunately that feat shows that even stunned creatures would always threaten by your reasoning. In fact, since it removes the fact that you can never attack, and since you say that it doesn't matter if you can't attack in a particular timeframe, with this feat you always threaten even if stunned. No because you can’t attack. But, what if you don't have them? SS is a spell, and readying an action is a special intiative action. Saying that you threaten with them doesn't mean that you threaten no matter if you use them or not He don’t say you threaten with them, he say you threat because your "ability to attack as a whole" isn’t zero. Same thing when you finish your AoO. egres I asked what kind of threat are you when you can't attack me during my casting. thondar Same when you finish your AoO. egres Same when you finish your regular attacks. thondar Yes, it's the same. In your interpretation you don't threat anymore. egres So, you didn't understand my interpretation at all. You don’t get the point. I’m a threat even I can attack in your turn in the same way you are a threat in my turn even you can’t attack because you finish AoO. To say I don’t threat because I can’t attack in your turn it’s the same to say I don’t threat in your turn because I finish my AoO and it’s the same to say I don’t threat in my turn because I finish my regular attack. thondar Stunned’s a condition that expressly remove the threat. egres Actually that's not true. Try again. thondar In our interpretation it’s true. As say marcus it negate actions, so negate attack. You already asked for it… don’t repeat please. egres But I'm asking for a rules based answer. Can you cite the rule the support it? Be more maieutic, please. thondar You know that too. I already answered. egres No, you didn't, as this reply shows. Stop your silly question: egres So you threaten even if stunned? thondar Of course no. Because A stunned creature can’t take actions. We act in a different way. No. We act same. P.S.: did you notice that Marcus is starting to differentiate his position from yours? He states that the RotG bit about invisiblle flankers is right. Me too. So? 1 to 8 remember..
thondar 06-22-07, 12:13 PM	I'm interested about this discussion and since I find it difficult to read, it would be nice to try to express correctly. You find difficult to read in italian forum too... :rolleyes:
Egres 06-23-07, 03:53 AM	If you're armed and you're not in a condition that prevents you from attacking in general, you do threaten. Not having a way to make a regular attack is like saying that you have no opportunity to do so. This is patently false. You are saying that if I have nothing to read I cannot read. You addressed that this is false too. Not being able to make AoOs doesn't remove the ability to attack; it merely cuts down on the events in which you're likely to do so. Snake's swiftness and readied actions merely give you more opportunities to attack. So, does a stunned creature with the Unconditional Power threaten? Except that you don't need to use an action to attack. Your threatened area is not defined by your ability to act. It's defined by your ability to attack. As such, the "even when it is not your action" clause merely extends the temporal context of your ability to attack beyond your actions (which is basically like saying that it doesn't matter whether you're acting or not).You know, what really bugs me is this questyion: if your interpretation is true, what would the following sentence mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack Just because the rules mention two ways of getting from A to B doesn't imply that there aren't more ways of getting from A to B or that the same rules apply to these other ways. B your reasaoning we could say that even stunned and paralized creatures threaten, because we don't know if something will allow them to attack. (not to mention the Unconditional Power feat) Besides that, if I have no SSwiftness spell, no readied action and I'm flat footed during my opponent's turn, how can I threaten? you're essentially having threat depending on attacks of opportunity and standard attacks (and arbitrarily deciding that these two types of attack are "regular attacks"), when this is clearly not the case. Actualy we are having threat depending on the ability to make an attak, any attack, in the exact timeframe we ask "do you threaten"? The difference between us is that you say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do so in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". In order to make AoOs, you need to be able to make attacks. If you're able to make attacks, by definition, you threaten. So, you know that you can make AoOs,. and you know that you threaten. Welcome in the apparent loop. In any case, please don't use me as a reference to dismiss Leilond's points. This isn't a two-sided battle. It's a discussion, and you should concentrate on addressing his points, rather than correlate his statements with those of other community members. I was simply underlining a fact. A fact that happened before... I think it’s clear what I’m saying. How can I know if I can do AoO if I don’t know if I can threat? I can not. But assuming for true that I can do AoO then necessarily I threat because i can do AoO only if i threat. It’s a deduction. Assuming for true... Eh. The truth here is that you derives the ability to threaten after you know that you can make AoOs, You are looping, but you'll never admit it. In fact, before you know that you can make AoOs you say that you don't threaten, but after knowing it you say the opposite. If this is not looping... Besdies that, what happend to my points about the IUS feat? Forgotten, eh thondar? Not to mention that if you can't take AoOs and it's not your turn, are there any squares into which you can make a melee attack? The text of AoOs states "If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity". The text for Strike, Unarmed is silent on the matter. The text for Unarmed Attacks states "An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity", and for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)". So if an unarmed character doesn't threaten squares and thus can't make AoOs, but an 'armed' unarmed character can make AoOs, then - based on the assertion that despite being unable to make AoOs, a flat-footed character threatens - do we assume that the 'armed' unarmed character, while released from the No-AoOs restriction, is still subject to the 'doesn't threaten any squares' limitation? Off course because you need threat to make AoO. If the spell don’t give threat then the spell broke a rule. I assume that the spell don’t broke any rule, so it give threat too. I have a question, then. If I'm stunned you say I don't threat. But with the Unconditionl Power feat I can attack. Does this feat brake the rules, then? Yes, but unfportunately that feat shows that even stunned creatures would always threaten by your reasoning. In fact, since it removes the fact that you can never attack, and since you say that it doesn't matter if you can't attack in a particular timeframe, with this feat you always threaten even if stunned. No because you can’t attack. Nope, becasue you say that there are spells and effects that allows you to attack even when you are not normally allowed to do so, and thus you threaten. I have shown that there's the possibility to do so even if stunned, and thus stunned creatures always threaten, by your interpretation. Don't change your arguments when they start to show patently wrong, or this discussion becomes moot. Besides that, thondar, can you tell me what this sentence would mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack He don’t say you threaten with them, he say you threat because your "ability to attack as a whole" isn’t zero. Same thing when you finish your AoO. Actually, your "ability to attack as a whole" is taken out of this air. If you cannot make any attack in a precise timeframe, you don't threaten. Saying that there are spells and other efefcts that *could* allow you to threaten is like saying that the Unconditional Power allows stunned creatures to threaten even if they don't have the feat or can't use it. To say I don’t threat because I can’t attack in your turn it’s the same to say I don’t threat in your turn because I finish my AoO and it’s the same to say I don’t threat in my turn because I finish my regular attack. I can't believe you are repeting the same mistake, when Marcus and another poster had already shon that you are wrong on this point. Excuse me, but I'm not starting to repeat the same answer over and over again only because you are too lazy to go back and read them. Be honest, and read the thread. thondar Stunned’s a condition that expressly remove the threat. egres Actually that's not true. Try again. thondar In our interpretation it’s true. As say marcus it negate actions, so negate attack. You already asked for it… don’t repeat please. egres But I'm asking for a rules based answer. Can you cite the rule the support it? Be more maieutic, please. thondar You know that too. I already answered. egres No, you didn't, as this reply shows. Stop your silly question: Quote: egres So you threaten even if stunned? thondar Of course no. Because A stunned creature can’t take actions. My silly friend, di you note that your answer has no rule to support it? Now, answer with a rule, or I'll start to think that you are avoiding to do so because you can't. No. We act same. Actually, you have no experience at all on these boards. Don't be stupidly arrogant and stop talking about things you don't know at all, Mr no-one-knows-who-you-are. Me too. So? 1 to 8 remember.. Heck, this is Alzheimer. one: You can’t do AoO if you don’t threat. Why do you repeat yourself? Because you don't understand. Repetita iuvant. Read the Convention of Bruxelles. Quote: two if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO This doesn't support your position, since I say that too. The problem is that you don't understand that the opposite too is true when AoOs are you only attack left. Quote:three if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Read above. And read the Convention of Bruxelles. Quote: four Threat depend on reach If it depends on reach, why stunned creatures don't threat? Not to mention, why paralyzed creatures don't threat? It says anywhere they don't threat. Rule based answer this time, please. Quote: five Threat depend on reach Read above. Quote: Six Threat depend on reach but don’t depend on AoO Actually that FAQ refers to a character not provoking AoOs. Read the rules, please. Quote: seven if I don’t threat I can’t do AoO Threat is a prerequisite for AoO Deja vu. thondar, please, don't *forget* to answer to my points.
thondar 06-23-07, 09:58 AM	If you're armed and you're not in a condition that prevents you from attacking in general, you do threaten. This is patently false. You are saying that if I have nothing to read I cannot read. It isn’t false, it’s flavour test to explain to you that you don’t need to can attack just in that instant. Not being able to make AoOs doesn't remove the ability to attack; it merely cuts down on the events in which you're likely to do so. Snake's swiftness and readied actions merely give you more opportunities to attack. So, does a stunned creature with the Unconditional Power threaten? Read again this very quote, you’ll find your answer. Ok, I bold it. More below. if your interpretation is true, what would the following sentence mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 1) be on reach 2) don’t have any conditions that block attack The difference between us is that you say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do so in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". No. we say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do attack in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". But in that time frame we haven’t to have any conditions that block attack. assuming for true that I can do AoO then necessarily I threat because i can do AoO only if i threat. It’s a deduction.The truth here is that you derives the ability to threaten after you know that you can make AoOs, Do you understand deduction? what happend to my points about the IUS feat? I answered to that too. You said monk don’t threat :lol: Not to mention that if you can't take AoOs and it's not your turn, are there any squares into which you can make a melee attack? I can have Alzheimer but you too… So if an unarmed character doesn't threaten squares and thus can't make AoOs, but an 'armed' unarmed character can make AoOs, then - based on the assertion that despite being unable to make AoOs, a flat-footed character threatens - do we assume that the 'armed' unarmed character, while released from the No-AoOs restriction, is still subject to the 'doesn't threaten any squares' limitation? No. Because threat is a prerequisite for AoO. So give AoO imply give threat too (this is different to say that if you can do AoO then you threat). Viceversa not’s true. Anyway monks threat. If I'm stunned you say I don't threat. But with the Unconditionl Power feat I can attack. Does this feat brake the rules, then? You have a condition that block attack anyway. So you don’t threat. To Can attack just in that instant not’s a necessity so your power don’t add nothing. you say that there are spells and effects that allows you to attack even when you are not normally allowed to do so, and thus you threaten. It was only a part of a explanation by logic, not by rules. So, it was only a part. It was only one explanation, there are other It wasn’t a rules. Actually, your "ability to attack as a whole" is taken out of this air. So your necessity to can do AoO. Btw "ability to attack as a whole" = "don’t have any conditions that block attack" If you cannot make any attack in a precise timeframe, you don't threaten. this too it’s taken out of this air. To say I don’t threat because I can’t attack in your turn it’s the same to say I don’t threat in your turn because I finish my AoO and it’s the same to say I don’t threat in my turn because I finish my regular attack. I can't believe you are repeting the same mistake, when Marcus and another poster had already shon that you are wrong on this point. I think that you don’t get the point. My silly friend, di you note that your answer has no rule to support it? Do really need to play dumb? 1) To threat, in our definition, you don’t have any conditions that block attack because You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack maybe you don’t agree with this lecture, but it’s a your problem. I’m speaking about my lecture, not yours. Of course. I’m saying that in my lecture a stunned creature don’t threaten. You are saying that in my lecture a stunned creature threaten. So we have to follow my lecture. 2) A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, This rule say that a stunned creature can’t take actions. 3) Making an attack is a standard action. This rule say that an attack is an action. 4) 2 + 2 = ? Ok. I’ll say. an attack is an action, a stunned creature can’t take actions so a stunned creature can’t attack. But you can’t have any conditions that block attack for threaten, so you don’t threat. Now, don’t make wordplay, please. Actually, you have no experience at all on these boards. So psion changed his mind? Now he’s thinking we are right and you’re wrong? Me too. So? 1 to 8 remember.. Heck, this is Alzheimer. [follow long useless post containing silly reply to the 8 faqs] I already reply to your reply and I’m still replying in this post to something so you haven't proved that the faqs are wrong (the burden is your).
Blackstorm_SK 06-23-07, 11:38 AM	Where do you find that? It's to same initiative. Sorry, I've not checked, before posting. No. It say "not ready for" It mean not ready for that action. It's different from not ready. So someone catch off-guard during an attack, is not ready for an attack. Thanks for playing with us. Anyway, if you think so then think about somebody not totally catch off guard: he's not totally ready. Funny. Ok, can you give me an example of "not totally catch off-guard"? (It seems to me a silly wordplay, but far away from me to think that of you...) In fact you don't need an example of "not totally ready" person: the meaning is clear. So clear that you cannot be able to find an example of that. Or are you saying that it's impossible to be not totally ready? Maybe you are wordplaying again… Lol. I'm the one that wordplaying, mr. "not-totally-catch-off-guard"? That flowerpot hits my head because i was below the windows unaware of it. And so it catch you off-guard (that is, not ready for it). Try again. Who speaked about a 5 foot step? I'm doing wordplay? Read again: Leilond: So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally Blackstorm: You can move when it's not your turn? thondar: Yes. You can't take a move action, but you can move. And he's speaking about logic. Blackstorm: And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? thondar: When someone speaks about rules you speak about logic and when someone speaks about logic you speak about rules… Move, what move? An action move? No can't generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn't speak about an action move and you know that. Blackstorm: Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? thondar: I repeat too. he's speaking about logic, not rule. So yes you can move. About rules? yes, he can move. Blackstorm: Show me that, then. thondar: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren't speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. I was clear saying I don't speak about a move action! So who's making wordplay? You! Another time. A 5-foot step isn't actually a move action. But is a move. And btw, don't make wordplays, please. Neither. PHB have more rules and better explained. What's your problem? Why i can't quote PHB? I've no problem. But if I ask for rules, and you quote only flavor text it's not fair. Btw: show me what are the rules that are in PHB but not in SRD. Not flavor text, rules. When you misunderstood a rule I give flavor test, too. No problem: it's free. Actually no: flavor text of phb is not under ogl license. I had say in concret. When they do a rule they think to game mechanics but they think to the reality too. So, by logic, when you can attack in your turn you threat all round (except exceptions) because turns, in logic, are simultaneous. Wrong way: "in logic" (...) turns doesn't exists at all. By raw you threaten all round because rules say this. Wrong way, btr turns are not simultaneous. And the rules don't say what you say. Of course. You can add anything between eat and even but if even was related to eat before it has to be related to eat after your insertion. Otherwise you changed the meaning. You phrase is wrong. It should be: You can eat, not You eat. And thus the even can refer to can, too. Because with my wording the rule is clear, with your is ambiguos and let you free to make your wordplays. Aw. When you do wordplay, then, it's ok, instead. Tell me more about your honesty. Logical and legal? Yes, but only if you think even related to threaten as was before. No. It's only a noraml substitution. If you can't understand it, don't reply. Just let it fall.
spikevampire 06-23-07, 12:10 PM	Leilond vedi che casino che hai fatto!!! 224 post :D Cmq se vuoi sapere qualcosa in lingua italiana, qualcosa di piu semplice possiamo contattarci... ciao ah non ho letto i 200 e piu post altrimenti ti avrei risposto
thondar 06-24-07, 12:53 PM	So someone catch off-guard during an attack, is not ready for an attack. he isn't ready for that attack. It wasn't difficult. Ok, can you give me an example of "not totally catch off-guard"? I repeat. :bored: Don't make wordplay. You don't need an example of "not totally ready" person: the meaning is clear. What mean an example of "not totally ready" person? I'm not totally ready for post. I'm not totally ready for take my exam. Lol. I'm the one that wordplaying, mr. "not-totally-catch-off-guard"? You begin that one. You are saying that it's impossible to be not totally ready :rolleyes: That flowerpot hits my head because i was below the windows unaware of it. And so it catch you off-guard (that is, not ready for it). Try again. No, it catch me unaware. As in the surprise round. Who speaked about a 5 foot step? I'm doing wordplay? Read again: Leilond: So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally Blackstorm: You can move when it's not your turn? thondar: Yes. You can't take a move action, but you can move. And he's speaking about logic. Blackstorm: And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? thondar: When someone speaks about rules you speak about logic and when someone speaks about logic you speak about rules… Move, what move? An action move? No can't generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn't speak about an action move and you know that. Blackstorm: Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? thondar: I repeat too. he's speaking about logic, not rule. So yes you can move. About rules? yes, he can move. Blackstorm: Show me that, then. thondar: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren't speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. I was clear saying I don't speak about a move action! So who's making wordplay? You! Another time. A 5-foot step isn't actually a move action. But is a move. And btw, don't make wordplays, please. Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Do you think someone don't have see your wordplay? Don't you be ashamed? What do you think to obtain beyond look ridiculous? I've no problem. But if I ask for rules, and you quote only flavor text it's not fair. Btw: show me what are the rules that are in PHB but not in SRD. Not flavor text, rules. Character creation. Now, I expecting same wordplay :rolleyes: I had say in concret. When they do a rule they think to game mechanics but they think to the reality too. So, by logic, when you can attack in your turn you threat all round (except exceptions) because turns, in logic, are simultaneous.Wrong way: "in logic" (...) turns doesn't exists at all. So? do you read the bold? They think to both. Wrong way, btr turns are not simultaneous. And the rules don't say what you say. Your (wrong) vision of the rule don't say that. 1) You eat all food you can reach 2) You eat even when you is not hungry => You eat all food you can reach even when you is not hungry Even is related to eat. You phrase is wrong. It should be: You can eat, not You eat. And thus the even can refer to can, too. You don't get the point. You can add anything in my phrase but if even was related to eat before (in my intention) it has to be related to eat after your insertion. Otherwise you changed the meaning. Your logical and legal substitution it's logical and legal only if you don't change the meaning. So when i say: 1) You threaten even when it is not your action You can add anything but even is related to threat. Point. You can only make ambiguos the phrase. Stop your silly wordplay. If you don't have nothing smart to say don't say nothing.
Marcus Majarra 06-24-07, 03:04 PM	This is patently false. You are saying that if I have nothing to read I cannot read. You addressed that this is false too. This is not what I'm saying. You're still able to read even if you have nothing to read, just like you're still able to attack even if you've got no attacks left. Being armed and within reach is like being literate: both enable you to do something (attack and read, respectively). So, does a stunned creature with the Unconditional Power threaten? I addressed this question earlier: having the Unconditional Power feat does not allow you to threaten while stunned; it merely allows you to manifest a psionic power while stunned. Being able to manifest a psionic power doesn't necessarily imply that you're able to deliver the power in question. If you're in a condition that prevents you from attacking, having Unconditional Power will not change this fact. You know, what really bugs me is this questyion: if your interpretation is true, what would the following sentence mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack It means that if you have the ability to make attacks and that a given square would be an eligible square for you to attack in, you threaten it. The only ways for you not to threaten a square are: 1) Being unable to attack. This must explicitly indicate that you are unable to attack, regardless of context. Or if context is provided, you're unable to threaten within and only within that context. 2) The square being beyond your melee reach. B your reasaoning we could say that even stunned and paralized creatures threaten, because we don't know if something will allow them to attack. (not to mention the Unconditional Power feat) Besides that, if I have no SSwiftness spell, no readied action and I'm flat footed during my opponent's turn, how can I threaten? No because you're not differentiating between being able to attack and having the opportunity to do so. There's a difference between the two simply because threatening doesn't depend on the opportunity to attack. If such were the case, then threat would only exist while an opportunity to attack presents itself. This is a logical fallacy as in order to attack, you need to threaten. Again, I must insist that you threaten as long as you have the ability to attack. The opportunity is unimportant as opportunities are limitless. Being unable to attack eliminates all opportunities. A stunned character cannot make AoOs no matter how agile he is. He can't even attack during his turn. Why? Because the stunned condition explicitly states that he cannot attack. Actualy we are having threat depending on the ability to make an attak, any attack, in the exact timeframe we ask "do you threaten"? The difference between us is that you say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do so in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". That's where your reasoning fails: you're implying that something must actively be enabling you to attack in order to threaten. This makes no sense as, by default, all characters are able to attack. Tell me, if a human is in its normal condition: what's actively enabling it to attack (and thus threaten)? 1) Having an action left to attack: this makes no sense as this would make you unable to attack when you have no actions left, whereas it's entirely possible to attack when you have no actions left. Evidence of this lies in attacks of opportunity, cleave, and other attacking mechanics that do not depend on your taking an action. 2) Having attacks of opportunity left: while these would enable you to threaten outside your turn, they are by no means exclusive, as evidenced by readied actions, cleave, snake's swiftness and possibly other ways of attacking outside your turn. In any case, this could only be true if it were stated in the rules that the only way to attack outside your turn are AoOs, unless stated otherwise. So, you know that you can make AoOs,. and you know that you threaten. Welcome in the apparent loop. What loop is that? I see no loop here. If you're capable of attacking you threaten. If you threaten you're a potential menace to any opponent within melee reach. If you see a loop, I'd like it if you could explain it more in detail (so that I can show you where this loop doesn't really exist). If you cannot make any attack in a precise timeframe, you don't threaten. How do you know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe? For that matter: what does it matter what you know? How does your opponent know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe? This is where threat lies: not in what you know, but in what your opponent knows you can do. A blind character will not take AoOs against you, but he can still attack you on his turn, so he's a threat. For that matter, you have no assurances that said character is blind. You only know that he's armed, within reach, and actually wielding his weapon in a combative fashion.
Blackstorm_SK 06-24-07, 05:28 PM	he isn't ready for that attack. It wasn't difficult. Yeah, he's not ready for that combat round. Don't make wordplay. You're so funny. Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren’t speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. You've said that. You've did a wordplay. I reply to it. You don't need an example of "not totally ready" person: the meaning is clear. So clear that you cannot be able to make an example of it. (Deja vu). What mean an example of "not totally ready" person? What part of "give me an example of not totally ready" is not clear to you? I'm not totally ready for post. That is? I'm not totally ready for take my exam. That is? You begin that one. You are saying that it's impossible to be not totally ready :rolleyes: Never said in general. In combat you'ready or you're not ready. No midway. No, it catch me unaware. As in the surprise round. In wich you're not ready to combat. Try again. Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step? Do you think tha repeat multiple times make your question less silly? I've speaked of a move. You've said: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. So, I can make a full round attack, and then out of my turn do a 5 foot step. Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions It's saying during my full round action before, during or after. So, you're saying that I can do a 5 foot step out of my turn. You said. Deal with your incongruence and tell me more about your honesty. Do you think someone don't have see your wordplay? Don't you be ashamed? What do you think to obtain beyond look ridiculous? Reductio ad hominem is not a good way to sustain your interpretation. Character creation. Well, right. When I'll need the copyrighted character creation method I'll ask you for PHB. Other example? Tell me all. So? do you read the bold? They think to both. It's not make the fact that btr turns are not simultaneos less true. Your (wrong) vision of the rule don't say that. My interpretation says that turns are not simultaneous. And regarding my "wrong" vision... All behold your 22 int score, rules-knowledge-keeper boy? You don't get the point. You can add anything in my phrase but if even was related to eat before (in my intention) it has to be related to eat after your insertion. In your intention? If you want something related to some other thing in your intention, give me something that is related de facto. Otherwise you changed the meaning. Your logical and legal substitution it's logical and legal only if you don't change the meaning. It's not. But you don't know this language deeply enough to recognize it. So when i say: 1) You threaten even when it is not your action You can add anything but even is related to threat. Point. You can only make ambiguos the phrase. You don't get the point. Your first sentece can be inserted in the second in the way I did. But I don't expect that you recognize it, so I'll let it fall. It's a change of wording anyway, but when others do it, they cannot, when you do it, you can. I'll not play with rules changing on the fly. Stop your silly wordplay. If you don't have nothing smart to say don't say nothing. If you don't know even the bases of english, don't write anything. Note: I would want to say you the same that you've said me about the smart thing to say, but in 8 pages of topic you didn't say anything smart all the way, so I cannot hope you stop it only because I'm asking you.
Blackstorm_SK 06-24-07, 06:00 PM	This is not what I'm saying. You're still able to read even if you have nothing to read, just like you're still able to attack even if you've got no attacks left. Being armed and within reach is like being literate: both enable you to do something (attack and read, respectively). Not quite. Being armed and in reach means only that if you can make an attack you can make it. ;) (Yeah, it's a tautology, but I think you understand want I mean) I addressed this question earlier: having the Unconditional Power feat does not allow you to threaten while stunned; it merely allows you to manifest a psionic power while stunned. Being able to manifest a psionic power doesn't necessarily imply that you're able to deliver the power in question. If you're in a condition that prevents you from attacking, having Unconditional Power will not change this fact. But manifesting a power that requires a touch melee attack render you armed and in reach if you have soomeane in 5 foot range. So, for what you've said above, you threaten. It means that if you have the ability to make attacks and that a given square would be an eligible square for you to attack in, you threaten it. The only ways for you not to threaten a square are: 1) Being unable to attack. This must explicitly indicate that you are unable to attack, regardless of context. Or if context is provided, you're unable to threaten within and only within that context. And being out of my turn is not a context? 2) The square being beyond your melee reach. Hmmm. Only if I cannot move. I've the way to threaten a 15 fett away opponent, in my turn. No because you're not differentiating between being able to attack and having the opportunity to do so. There's a difference between the two simply because threatening doesn't depend on the opportunity to attack. Right. But it depends from the ability to attack (that is, if you're allowed to attack that square.) If such were the case, then threat would only exist while an opportunity to attack presents itself. This is a logical fallacy as in order to attack, you need to threaten. Never said that you threat only if you have the opportunity to attack (i.e. only if you have an opponent in reach). Never. Again, I must insist that you threaten as long as you have the ability to attack. The opportunity is unimportant as opportunities are limitless. Being unable to attack eliminates all opportunities. A stunned character cannot make AoOs no matter how agile he is. He can't even attack during his turn. Why? Because the stunned condition explicitly states that he cannot attack. When you're out of your turn, you've not SSwifness spell at all, you haven't readied an action, and you cannot make AoOs, you're unable to attack, 'cause out of your turn you cannot make standard attacks. That's where your reasoning fails: you're implying that something must actively be enabling you to attack in order to threaten. This makes no sense as, by default, all characters are able to attack. Tell me, if a human is in its normal condition: what's actively enabling it to attack (and thus threaten)? Don't get. I don't know why, but you've misunderstood what Egres says. 1) Having an action left to attack: this makes no sense as this would make you unable to attack when you have no actions left, whereas it's entirely possible to attack when you have no actions left. Evidence of this lies in attacks of opportunity, cleave, and other attacking mechanics that do not depend on your taking an action. Never said that. Haven't an action left doesn't necessarily imply that you don't threat. 2) Having attacks of opportunity left: while these would enable you to threaten outside your turn, they are by no means exclusive, as evidenced by readied actions, cleave, snake's swiftness and possibly other ways of attacking outside your turn. In any case, this could only be true if it were stated in the rules that the only way to attack outside your turn are AoOs, unless stated otherwise. First a little note about cleave: it requires that you can make attacks if you want to use it out of your turn.. and if you don't have SSwiftness spell or readied actions, the only way is via AoOs.So cleave is not a good example. It requires a pre-existent ability to attack, to use it. In the timeframe in wich you want to use it. Second: when you don't have a readied action, or SSwifttness spell, or other things of those (can I call it "the normal status"?) your only way is to make AoOs. The fact that SS spell and readied actions allow you to attack doesn't mean that if you don't have SS spell available (let's say, someone don't want it in his campaign, so he banm the spell) you're able to attack only because the SS spells says so. As the fact that you can't readying an action doesn't mean that you're able to attack in other way than AoOs if you actually haven't readied an actions. Understand what I'm saying? I think I've been a little confusionary... :P If you don't get it ask freely, I'll explain that better... or at least I'll try to do :) What loop is that? I see no loop here. If you're capable of attacking you threaten. And if you threaten you can attack. How do you know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe? If you can't know it, you can't know even if you can make a standard/full round attack. I think I've not understood your question. For that matter: what does it matter what you know? You must know if you can attack, to attack. How does your opponent know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe? He don't know, and it's ok this way. This is where threat lies: not in what you know, but in what your opponent knows you can do. But when the rules speaks of threat doesn't say a word about your opponent's awareness. A blind character will not take AoOs against you, but he can still attack you on his turn, so he's a threat. Honestly, I think it's hard to consider a threat a blinded character. BtW, you know, in it's turn he can threat, but out of his turn he's not threat. And I think this is coherent with the real life: if you close you're eyes, you are a threaten when you try to attack, but a very less threat than when you have your eyes open. You have only a vague idea of where am I. For that matter, you have no assurances that said character is blind. You only know that he's armed, within reach, and actually wielding his weapon in a combative fashion. And that he strike at random. It's rather easy to see an aimed strike and a random strike. And it's easy enough to see a blinded opponent. A blinded opponent doesn't move with the familiarity of a non blinded character.
thondar 06-24-07, 08:26 PM	he's not ready for that combat round. Combat round? What’s a combat round? I remember to you, that we are speaking about logic. You asked an example in real life, not in game. Leilond: So yes, you are a threaten while flat-footed, you're moving and you're oppoent see without doubt that you're attacking him within half a second, he must pay attention to you, he must divide his attention between you and your ally Blackstorm You can move when it's not your turn? thondar: Yes. You can't take a move action, but you can move. And he's speaking about logic. Blackstorm And I'm speaking about rules. Where they say that I can move if it's not my turn? thondar: When someone speaks about rules you speak about logic and when someone speaks about logic you speak about rules… Move, what move? An action move? No can't generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn't speak about an action move and you know that. Blackstorm Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? thondar: I repeat too. he's speaking about logic, not rule. So yes you can move. About rules? yes, he can move. Blackstorm Show me that, then. thondar: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren't speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move. I was clear saying I don't speak about a move action! So who's making wordplay? You! Another time. You've said that. You've did a wordplay. I reply to it. I’ve said what? "Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. We aren't speaking about move action (yourself say this) or walk, just move."? Where the wordplay? Be clear! So clear that you cannot be able to make an example of it Hint: before read the post, then answer. I give two example. I'm not totally ready for post.That is? What part of " I'm not totally ready for post" is not clear to you? Never said in general. In combat you'ready or you're not ready. No midway. Why this difference? It’s another worplay? Maybe later you’ll say that you’re speaking by rules… I’m not totally ready for that punch because I expected a kick. I’m not totally ready for combat because I have to pick up my gauntlet. No, it catch me unaware. As in the surprise round. In wich you're not ready to combat. Try again. You are not ready and unaware. Do you know that there’s same difference between surprised and flat footed? Do you think tha repeat multiple times make your question less silly? I've speaked of a move. I hope it helped you to understand. But I’m wrong… So you were speaking about a move? thondar: Move, what move? An action move? No can't generally do an action move out of your turn. So? He didn't speak about an action move and you know that. Blackstorm Sorry, but do you know the difference betwen move and move action? Yes? So, I repeat: I can move out of my turn? Not move action. Can I move? […] thondar: Any full round physic action allow you to move out of your turn. Blackstorm So, I can make a full round attack, and then out of my turn do a 5 foot step. What part of "Where i say that you can do a 5-foot step?" is not clear to you? Leilond neither speaked about a 5-foot step and you know that. Are you saying that a full round action occur all in your turn? That’s the problem? Be clear. I know, to be clear don’t leave space for your wordplay… sorry You don’t have nothing better to say, eh? Well, right. When I'll need the copyrighted character creation method I'll ask you for PHB. Other example? Tell me all. Did you want an example? Now you have your example. SRD and PHB are different. PHB has more rules and better explained. Point. No more example. It's not make the fact that btr turns are not simultaneos less true So? When they do a rule they don’t think only to game mechanics. So it is plausible that you threaten out of your turn even if you can’t do AoO. thondar By raw you threaten all round because rules say this. Blackstorm Wrong way, btr turns are not simultaneous. And the rules don't say what you say thondar Your (wrong) vision of the rule don't say that. Blackstorm My interpretation says that turns are not simultaneous. Hint: when do you quote don’t cut the pieces because I piece together. Here we aren’t speaking about simultaneity. In your intention? If you want something related to some other thing in your intention, give me something that is related de facto. In my intention? Of course in my! That’s my rewording of the rules, not yours! You take it, add some stuff making ambiguos the phrase, then you say it have another meaning! Not quite. Being armed and in reach means only that if you can make an attack you can make it. (Yeah, it's a tautology, but I think you understand want I mean) It mean that you threaten And being out of my turn is not a context? You made this question other times… Alzheimer? No, it isn’t a context. Let’s play: I ask to you, why? I see no loop here. If you're capable of attacking you threaten. And if you threaten you can attack So? That’s a deduction not a requisite. How do you know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe? For that matter: what does it matter what you know?You must know if you can attack, to attack. He say what don’t matter to know that you can't make any attack in any given precise timeframe. By now you should know the sequel…
Leilond 06-25-07, 03:35 AM	Not quite. Being armed and in reach means only that if you can make an attack you can make it. (Yeah, it's a tautology, but I think you understand want I mean) RAW But for the matter of "threatening" that's totally to be ignored. The rule say us to ignore turns And being out of my turn is not a context? RAW No, because the rule tell us to ignore that context ("even when it is not your action") This rule is very clear, and tell us tu ignore the fact that it is not your action Right. But it depends from the ability to attack (that is, if you're allowed to attack that square.) RAW Regardless of the fact that it isn't my action. The ability to attack as (using your words about running out of AoO) "general ability" And if you threaten you can attack. RAW As "general ability". Not necessary in a precise moment. For instance you threaten while flat-footed, but you cannot take AoO (you can attack with a prepared action) And you can attack without threatening too. (Unarmed strike) The prerequisite are in this sequence You can attack a square => You threaten unless a specific rule prevents it You threaten a square => You can take AoO against that square unless a specific rule prevents it So, you cannot take AoO without threatening a square, but you can threaten a square without the possibility of AoO Because the rule say to ignore the fact that it isn't my action You must know if you can attack, to attack. RAW First you have to know if you can attack Then you can know if you threaten a square Only after that you can know if you can take AoO But when the rules speaks of threat doesn't say a word about your opponent's awareness. RAW The rules say that if you're not aware at the beginning of an encounter you're surprised and YOU CANNOT TAKE ACTION. This is RAW BtW, you know, in it's turn he can threat, but out of his turn he's not threat. And I think this is coherent with the real life: if you close you're eyes, you are a threaten when you try to attack, but a very less threat than when you have your eyes open. You have only a vague idea of where am I. Common sense Exactly "very less threat" but still a threat. You've to pay attention to me or a sword will hit you A blinded opponent doesn't move with the familiarity of a non blinded character. Common sense Exactly, still move and swing. I'm not totally ready for doing the exam. I can still go to the exam and I can still pass it. Beign "not totally ready" means that "I'm ready" but not "totally" If I want to say that "I'm not ready at all" I will write "I'm not ready at all", or "I'm not ready". Actually no: flavor text of phb is not under ogl license. And? I don't matter at all the Ogl license! The beholder and the displacer beast aren't under the ogl license and you cannot find their rules on the SRD, but there are D&D rules about them! Because we're playing D&D I'm playing D&D and the ogl license means NOTHING for D&D. The PHB has more rules and better explained than the SRD and most of all, the PHB is an official source for D&D while the SRD is an unofficial resource. If you don't own the english version of the D&D manuals, it isn't an our problem. It is and always will be more official D&D source then the SRD. So you can point me the SRD as "good advice", but I will search on the manuals for a better explained rule
Marcus Majarra 06-25-07, 01:54 PM	Not quite. Being armed and in reach means only that if you can make an attack you can make it. (Yeah, it's a tautology, but I think you understand want I mean) You're implying that there's more that makes you able to attack than simply being armed and within reach (and not being in a condition that prevents you from attacking as a whole). Please do share this information. But manifesting a power that requires a touch melee attack render you armed and in reach if you have soomeane in 5 foot range. So, for what you've said above, you threaten. Selective reading will do you no good. Manifesting a power that requires a melee touch attack and being able to deliver said touch attack are two separate things. Even if the power effectively arms you, it implies by no means that you threaten if you're otherwise unable to attack. For example, a monk is always armed. A paralyzed monk doesn't threaten because he can't attack, despite being armed and within reach. Manifesting an Unconditional Power that requires a melee touch attack merely arms you. It doesn't enable you to attack. And being out of my turn is not a context? On the contrary. It's a pretty big context, actually. Now, if you can somehow prove that certain conditions prevent you from attacking outside your turn (as a whole), then by all means you do not threaten outside your turn. Hmmm. Only if I cannot move. I've the way to threaten a 15 fett away opponent, in my turn. Movement is irrelevant with respect to threat. Threat is always relative to the square you're in, since it's a reach-derived mechanic. Right. But it depends from the ability to attack (that is, if you're allowed to attack that square.) That's correct. You've yet to demonstrate what prevents you from attacking any given square. When you're out of your turn, you've not SSwifness spell at all, you haven't readied an action, and you cannot make AoOs, you're unable to attack, 'cause out of your turn you cannot make standard attacks. And where is it's stated you're not allowed to attack? The implication you're making is that if you have no attacks left, you're not allowed to attack. It's like saying that if you've got no books to read, you're not allowed to read. First a little note about cleave: it requires that you can make attacks if you want to use it out of your turn.. and if you don't have SSwiftness spell or readied actions, the only way is via AoOs.So cleave is not a good example. It requires a pre-existent ability to attack, to use it. In the timeframe in wich you want to use it. Second: when you don't have a readied action, or SSwifttness spell, or other things of those (can I call it "the normal status"?) your only way is to make AoOs. You cannot prove this. Where is it stated that AoOs are the only way to attack outside your turn unless otherwise mentioned? There's no such thing as a normal status with respect to attacks. You're making this up to justify your claims as opposed to quoting evidence to support your claims. And if you threaten you can attack. Actually, this is not quite true; you threaten because you can attack, hence the sentence: "you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." (PHB137) What you need to remember from this sentence is that a square becomes threatened by you as long as you're capable of making a melee attack into that square. If you can't know it, you can't know even if you can make a standard/full round attack. I think I've not understood your question. My question was mostly rhetorical. You know you can attack a square because you're capable of doing it. What makes you capable of doing it? The fact that nothing is preventing you from doing it. Thinking back about your comment on the "normal status," I believe the normal status would be "can attack," whereas an abnormal status would make you "unable to attack." Being able to attack requires no special mention, since regular creatures are always capable of melee attacks, just like all spellcasters are always capable of casting spells. You must know if you can attack, to attack. This only matters insofar as to when you actually want to attack. Threatened squares having nothing to do with this, since these squares are labeled as such by virtue of your ability to make melee attacks into them, as opposed to actually making melee attacks into them. He don't know, and it's ok this way. But when the rules speaks of threat doesn't say a word about your opponent's awareness. I was merely elaborating on this subject to explain how the mechanics of threat, as written, relate to the battlefield. Threat rules make no reference at all to awareness, whether it be your own or another's. The term "threat" itself is defined as "an indication or warning of probable trouble." This indication is issued by the threatening character by virtue of being armed, within reach, and capable of attacking the threatened square. The trouble is a factor that the defender must consider. How probable the trouble is depends on a lot of things, but the threat is issued nonetheless. Honestly, I think it's hard to consider a threat a blinded character. BtW, you know, in it's turn he can threat, but out of his turn he's not threat. And I think this is coherent with the real life: if you close you're eyes, you are a threaten when you try to attack, but a very less threat than when you have your eyes open. You have only a vague idea of where am I. And that he strike at random. It's rather easy to see an aimed strike and a random strike. And it's easy enough to see a blinded opponent. A blinded opponent doesn't move with the familiarity of a non blinded character. I agree with you. And while a blind character might not be very menacing, it doesn't change the fact that he's still issuing a threat by being armed, within reach, and capable of attacking you. Threat, the way it's defined in the RAW, does not depend on the defender's perception of things. You stated that it's hard to consider a blind character as a threat. I agree with you: I don't see a blind character as very dangerous. Does this make the blind character unable to attack me? No, he's still capable of doing it. This is the important thing to remember. Regardless, being in a blind character's threatened squares is already far less risky than being in a sighted character's threatened squares. For starters, all opponents are considered to have total concealment relative to him. Furthermore, the blind character cannot execute AoOs in his threatened squares. This demonstrates where the danger is mitigated. Does he still threaten? Quite so. Why? Because you've yet to demonstrate how he's unable to attack. In any case, blind characters (or any issue dealing with certain creatures not being able to see other creatures in combat) are a special case that mainly lacks in realism with respect to flanking, going by the RAW. This is why I recommended that unofficial rule from the RotG.
Psion_3 06-26-07, 03:10 AM	It isn’t false, it’s flavour test to explain to you that you don’t need to can attack just in that instant. What flavour text are you talking about? Originally Posted by egres Quote: Originally Posted by marcus Not being able to make AoOs doesn't remove the ability to attack; it merely cuts down on the events in which you're likely to do so. Snake's swiftness and readied actions merely give you more opportunities to attack. So, does a stunned creature with the Unconditional Power threaten? Read again this very quote, you’ll find your answer. Ok, I bold it. More below. But, this is false. A flat footed creature without ready actions or spells and such cannot make any attack. There are no "more opportunities". They are the only opportunities left. Originally Posted by egres if your interpretation is true, what would the following sentence mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 1) be on reach 2) don’t have any conditions that block attack With this meaning that sentence wouldnt need the missing bit about "even when it's not your action". Thia shows that there's something wrong in your interpretation, IMHO. Originally Posted by egres The difference between us is that you say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do so in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". No. we say that you threaten even if there's nothing that allows you to do attack in the time frame I ask "do you threaten?". But in that time frame we haven’t to have any conditions that block attack. I don't understand. If you are flat footed, iwthout readied actions and spells you cannot attack during your opponent's turn. by your reasoning you wouldn't threaten. Originally Posted by egres Quote: Originally Posted by thondar assuming for true that I can do AoO then necessarily I threat because i can do AoO only if i threat. It’s a deduction. The truth here is that you derives the ability to threaten after you know that you can make AoOs, Do you understand deduction? Your deduction is flawed for two reasonons: 1) it's based on an unproved assumption: on a false basis you can deduct everything 2) no matter the way you arrive to the same conclusion: you are still "looping", as you say. No. Because threat is a prerequisite for AoO. So give AoO imply give threat too (this is different to say that if you can do AoO then you threat). How's that different? The result is the same: you are "looping". You say that you threaten after you know that you can make AoO. You have a condition that block attack anyway. So you don’t threat. To Can attack just in that instant not’s a necessity so your power don’t add nothing. I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'll try to address it anyway. You say that the ability to to attack in a specific timeframe doesn't help a stunned creature to threaten, am I right? Now I wonder: if a stunned creature can attack, does it threaten? ] Originally Posted by egres you say that there are spells and effects that allows you to attack even when you are not normally allowed to do so, and thus you threaten. It was only a part of a explanation by logic, not by rules. So, it was only a part. It was only one explanation, there are other It wasn’t a rules.[/QUOTE] Now I'm completely lost. May I ask you to further explain this point? an attack is an action, a stunned creature can’t take actions so a stunned creature can’t attack. But you can’t have any conditions that block attack for threaten, so you don’t threat. If I understand what Egres is asking for, why stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power don't threat? Thats' an interesting point, IMHO.
Psion_3 06-26-07, 03:23 AM	This is not what I'm saying. You're still able to read even if you have nothing to read, just like you're still able to attack even if you've got no attacks left. Being armed and within reach is like being literate: both enable you to do something (attack and read, respectively). You are right, but what in your opponent0s turn, without readied actions and such, you [aren't able to make any attack. I addressed this question earlier: having the Unconditional Power feat does not allow you to threaten while stunned; it merely allows you to manifest a psionic power while stunned. Being able to manifest a psionic power doesn't necessarily imply that you're able to deliver the power in question. If you're in a condition that prevents you from attacking, having Unconditional Power will not change this fact. I don't understand. The feat allows you to manifest a power. As you earlier have shown, you can manifest a power and attack with it. The stunned condition doesn't prevent you from attacking, but from taking actions in general. If this feat allows you to take actions, and attack, how can you say that you don't threaten? What rules are you supporting your reply on to? It means that if you have the ability to make attacks and that a given square would be an eligible square for you to attack in, you threaten it. The only ways for you not to threaten a square are: 1) Being unable to attack. This must explicitly indicate that you are unable to attack, regardless of context. Or if context is provided, you're unable to threaten within and only within that context. 2) The square being beyond your melee reach. By this meaning the added bit "even if it's not your action" would be completely useless. No because you're not differentiating between being able to attack and having the opportunity to do so. I think Egres's point is different. He says that you don't threaten when you have no way to attack your opponent. If you can attack him, in the time frame you want to do so, you threaten him. Being unable to attack eliminates all opportunities. A stunned character cannot make AoOs no matter how agile he is. He can't even attack during his turn. Why? Because the stunned condition explicitly states that he cannot attack. But what if he has the Unconditional Power feat? 1) Having an action left to attack: this makes no sense as this would make you unable to attack when you have no actions left, whereas it's entirely possible to attack when you have no actions left. Evidence of this lies in attacks of opportunity, cleave, and other attacking mechanics that do not depend on your taking an action. 2) Having attacks of opportunity left: while these would enable you to threaten outside your turn, they are by no means exclusive, as evidenced by readied actions, cleave, snake's swiftness and possibly other ways of attacking outside your turn. In any case, this could only be true if it were stated in the rules that the only way to attack outside your turn are AoOs, unless stated otherwise. 3) having the ability to threaten and no conditions that prevent him to attack in the time frame he wants to do so How do you know that you can't make any attack in any given precise time frame? It's my opponent turn. I'm flat footed. I have no readied actions and no spells to help me. I ask the DM if I can attack my opponent. He answers "no". I don't threaten him. This is where threat lies: not in what you know, but in what your opponent knows you can do. Hmmm, this would mean that an invisible stunned creature still threatens, since his opponents cannot know that he's stunned. Sorry, but I don't buy that. This would also imply that if my enemy doesn't know I'm there I don't threaten him.
Leilond 06-26-07, 03:30 AM	But, this is false. A flat footed creature without ready actions or spells and such cannot make any attack. There are no "more opportunities". They are the only opportunities left. The rules doesn't say that a flat-footed character cannot attack. Being able to attack and having the opportunity to do so are two different issue The rules only ask to being able, and a flat-footed character can attack (a character walking balancing is flat-footed but can attack) With this meaning that sentence wouldnt need the missing bit about "even when it's not your action". Thia shows that there's something wrong in your interpretation, IMHO. Because you misunderstand the "even when it's not your action". That sentence means that it isn't important that it isn't your action, but that you must consider the general ability to attack, not the opporunity to do so I don't understand. If you are flat footed, iwthout readied actions and spells you cannot attack during your opponent's turn. It isn't a problem The rule say us (even when it is not your action) that you threaten even when you have not the opportunity to attack, unless your general ability to attack is denied (paralized) Your deduction is flawed for two reasonons: 1) it's based on an unproved assumption: on a false basis you can deduct everything 2) no matter the way you arrive to the same conclusion: you are still "looping", as you say. Here you are the one that do not understand Threatening is a prerequisite for AoO. If you say me "I can make AoO" I respond you: You threaten or your sentence is FALSE. If you say "I cannot Make AoO" I respond you Pheraps you threaten or pheraps not, AoO cannot say us that You say that you threaten after you know that you can make AoO. There's no loop. I can say that because the threatening is the FIRST thing to verify. If you say "I can make an AoO against that target" you MUST have verified that you threaten that tariget in advance If you haven't verified that you threaten BEFORE you pronounce that phrase this means you were wrong! You cannot say "I can make an AoO against that target" if you FIRST don't know if you threaten it. You can't You say that the ability to to attack in a specific timeframe doesn't help a stunned creature to threaten, am I right? Now I wonder: if a stunned creature can attack, does it threaten? No, because in the stunned definition it is written "A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions" This prevent the creature to attack AS A WHOLE, not in a specific moment If I understand what Egres is asking for, why stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power don't threat? Being able to manifest a psionic power doesn't necessarily imply that you're able to deliver the power in question. If you're in a condition that prevents you from attacking (stunned), having Unconditional Power will not change this fact, you're still stunned and still cannot deliver the attack
Egres 06-26-07, 09:13 AM	The rules doesn't say that a flat-footed character cannot attack. The rules do say that if you are on your opponent0s turn you cannot make AoOs, and if you are out of readied actions or such you cannot attack. Being able to attack and having the opportunity to do so are two different issue We do agree on this. Don't try to joke around it, please: you aren't smart enough. The rules only ask to being able, and a flat-footed character can attack (a character walking balancing is flat-footed but can attack) Are you able to attack if you aren't able to attack during your opponent's turn? Nope. Because you misunderstand the "even when it's not your action". That sentence means that it isn't important that it isn't your action, but that you must consider the general ability to attack, not the opporunity to do so Ah, that's funny. Now Psion_3 *doesn't understand* only because he doesn't agree with your interpretation. Wasn't I the mean one when I said the same thing to you? lol The rule say us (even when it is not your action) that you threaten even when you have not the opportunity to attack, unless your general ability to attack is denied (paralized) Nope. The rules say that you can threaten if you can attack, even if it's not your action. You threaten or your sentence is FALSE. If you say "I cannot Make AoO" I respond you Pheraps you threaten or pheraps not, AoO cannot say us that But in Psion_3 example you are able only to make AoOs. Deal with it. I can say that because the threatening is the FIRST thing to verify. If you say "I can make an AoO against that target" you MUST have verified that you threaten that tariget in advance Nope. What' if I say that you can make only AoOs? You cannot say "I can make an AoO against that target" if you FIRST don't know if you threaten it. You can't But what if the only attacks allowed are AoOs? No, because in the stunned definition it is written "A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions" This prevent the creature to attack AS A WHOLE, not in a specific moment But with Unconditional Power he can attack. Does he threaten? Why didn't you reply? Being able to manifest a psionic power doesn't necessarily imply that you're able to deliver the power in question. If you're in a condition that prevents you from attacking (stunned), having Unconditional Power will not change this fact, you're still stunned and still cannot deliver the attack Silly reply, indeed. You say that a stunned creature can't attack beacause can't take actions. If the Unconditional Power feat allows action, it allows attacks. How can it allows actions and not allowing attack (i.e, an action?) Try to reason before posting, please.
Leilond 06-26-07, 09:35 AM	The rules do say that if you are on your opponent0s turn you cannot make AoOs, and if you are out of readied actions or such you cannot attack. The rules say that being in opponent turn it isn't an issue (even when it is not your action). You can attack as general ability, you have not the opportunity to do so in this precise moment, but the condition of being flat-footed doesn't remove your ability to attack, only the ability to make AoO, you can still attack in your turn, or in the opponent turn with a prepared action By the way "even when it is not your action" tell us that it isn't an issue to consider at all Are you able to attack if you aren't able to attack during your opponent's turn? No. But the rules say us that it isn't important for threatening issue ("even when it is not your action") Now Psion_3 *doesn't understand* only because he doesn't agree with your interpretation. Wasn't I the mean one when I said the same thing to you? Sure. I said something like 100 hundred times that the fact I think you're wrong doesn't mean you're wrong It is my opinion, and I can be wrong. Sorry if I didn't point it out for the 101st times The rules say that you can threaten if you can attack, even if it's not your action. The rules say that you can threaten if you can attack, even WHEN it's not your action. Exactly, so you can ignore that it isn't your action, it isn't an issue But in Psion_3 example you are able only to make AoOs. To say that you can make AoO until you FIRST verify if you threaten What' if I say that you can make only AoOs? Did you verified that you threaten? If you didn't you cannot say that, because you must FIRST verify the threatening and only after that you can say if you can or cannot make an AoO into a square But what if the only attacks allowed are AoOs? I don't know. Show me that situation and I will respond. Does that situation prevent to attack as a whole? Does that situation prevent to act as a whole? At first glance I will respond that you threaten, but I will be more sure if you explain me the condition you're talking about But with Unconditional Power he can attack. I don't know if that power let you attack while stunned, I don't think so, but let's admit you can You don't threaten immediatley before attacking and do not threaten immediately after. Because you're stunned, so you don't threaten because you're stunned. AoO aren't an issue at all You can attack without threatening, it's in the rule (for instance "unarmed attack") Silly reply, indeed. You say that a stunned creature can't attack beacause can't take actions. If the Unconditional Power feat allows action, it allows attacks. How can it allows actions and not allowing attack (i.e, an action?) I don't think it allows attacks if you're stunned, paralized, nauseated or the like But if we admit you can attack, you still don't threaten because you're still stunned Spells and psionic powers can "break the rules". The fact that a spell or a power break a rule doesn't mean that the rule stop working in the same way. You can cast "feather fall" during your opponent turn, this doesn't mean you can cast every spell during the opponent turn. So, a single spell or power cannot demostrate nothing, can AT BEST have a special rule that work only for that spell Try to reason before posting, please. Try to wash your mouth and to be polite. You're the most egocentric, ill-mannered rude user I've never met on the net No one of us used to talk to anyone else with that stupid way, like you're the god and we are your servant. Shut up and read, pheraps you'll learn how a discussion on the forum should work Reply With Quote You forgot a word: "PLEASE" Do you know the meaning of that word? Kind people use it when they ask to others to make something, to demostrate a bit of respect and the fact that it is not nice to give order to people that do not need to obey you
thondar 06-26-07, 10:35 AM	What flavour text are you talking about It isn’t the complete rule according marcus. It’s only a osservation. A flat footed creature without ready actions or spells and such cannot make any attack. There are no "more opportunities". They are the only opportunities left. He isn’t speaking about “ready actions or spells and such” but only about “Snake's swiftness and readied actions”. So you can use other spell and such to attack. The important thing is that you don’t need AoO to attack out of your turn. Anyway when you finish AoO you can’t attack in the same way you can’t do without spell and such. So you threat or you don’t threat in both cases (according you). if your interpretation is true, what would the following sentence mean for you? You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack 1) be on reach 2) don’t have any conditions that block attack With this meaning that sentence wouldnt need the missing bit about "even when it's not your action". No! In our interpretation that phrase is vital because it say that to be out of your turn it’s a condition to ignore. If I can do regular attack (ignoring that isn’t my turn) I threat. In your interpretation instead that phrase it’s useless. I showed that same post ago. If you are flat footed, iwthout readied actions and spells you cannot attack during your opponent's turn. by your reasoning you wouldn't threaten. Same as you when finish AoO. But in our interpretation there’s the second phrase: If out of your turn you can do regular attack (ignoring you are out of your turn) you threat. I remember to you that to be flat footed don’t block regular attack. To be out of your turn neither (for the second phrase). Your deduction is flawed for two reasonons: 1) it's based on an unproved assumption: on a false basis you can deduct everything You have give that base. If it’s false it’s your fault. I repeat: use a real spell for your question. 2) no matter the way you arrive to the same conclusion: you are still "looping", as you say. No. you can loop with definitions but you can’t loop with deductions. Definition: threat is a prerequisite to make an AoO (I Say this, and I proved) Hypothesis: the spell give AoO (it’s your Hypothesis, if it’s false it’s your fault) Deduction: the spell give threat because it’s obligatory give threat to give AoO. How's that different? The result is the same: you are "looping". You say that you threaten after you know that you can make AoO. I hope you aren’t making worplay. It’s different because to say “give AoO imply give threat too” it’s a deduction, to say “if you can do AoO then you threat” it’s a definition. You give that definition and you loop, in effect. Definition: to entry in this club you must to be major Hypothesis: I see you in the club Deduction: you are major Can I say that you need to be seen in the club to be major? No I can not. You say that the ability to to attack in a specific timeframe doesn't help a stunned creature to threaten, am I right? yes. Now I wonder: if a stunned creature can attack, does it threaten? No more example theorical. How can a stunned creature attack? Give me a real official spell. May I ask you to further explain this point? Yes, but now it’s too dispersive. Quote all speech related and I explain for you. I think that if you read all you understand by yourself. In brief he say that you threat out of your turn because your enemy have to keep an eye on you. If I understand what Egres is asking for, why stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power don't threat? I have already aswered Stunned block attack. Unconditional Power don’t remove stunned.
thondar 06-26-07, 10:52 AM	but what in your opponent0s turn, without readied actions and such, you [aren't able to make any attack You don’t need to be able out of your turn because there’s the second phrase: even when etc.. I hope you remember that phrase by now By this meaning the added bit "even if it's not your action" would be completely useless. No. It’s say that to be out of your turn it’s a context to ignore. Without that phrase you can’t do regular attack out of your turn, so you don’t threat out of your turn. He says that you don't threaten when you have no way to attack your opponent. If you can attack him, in the time frame you want to do so, you threaten him. Yes, Egres say this but we say different. 3) having the ability to threaten and no conditions that prevent him to attack in the time frame he wants to do so You don’t need threat to attack by rule (read attack definition) If you need threat to attack (regular) you will be looping.
thondar 06-26-07, 11:07 AM	The rules do say that if you are on your opponent0s turn you cannot make AoOs, and if you are out of readied actions or such you cannot attack. so? Are you able to attack if you aren't able to attack during your opponent's turn? Are you speaking about when I finish my AoO? The rules say that you can threaten if you can attack, even if it's not your action. Exactly what he say But in Psion_3 example you are able only to make AoOs. No. we don’t know. It don’t say nothing about threat. So it give threat or the spell broke the rules. What' if I say that you can make only AoOs? What' if I say that you can only threaten but not attack? But what if the only attacks allowed are AoOs? To allow AoO you have to allow threat.
Marcus Majarra 06-26-07, 01:15 PM	You are right, but what in your opponent0s turn, without readied actions and such, you [aren't able to make any attack. This, inherently, makes no sense. Here's why: 1) Nothing explicitly indicates that you're unable to attack. This is the most obvious reason. 2) Let's assume it works like you say. When are you able to attack outside your turn? Is it when you still have AoOs left? This cannot be: you do not have the possibility to attack outside your turn unless an opponent provokes an AoO from you. Extending this fact, if you cannot attack, you are thus unable to threaten as well. But then, if you do not threaten, no opponent can provoke an AoO from you, since the opponent needs to perform certain actions while in a threatened square, and you do not threaten that square since you're unable to attack at that particular moment. This is a loop of incoherence. Now, if you start arguing about the potential to make attacks as a justification to keep threatening (and thus validate AoOs), the only way you can prove your point is by providing evidence that your potential has a limit. In other words, you need to find a way to demonstrate that, at a certain point, it is undeniable that you're incapable of attacking, regardless of circumstance. Or if you want to take circumstance into account, you need to keep the focus of the restrictions within the context of said circumstance. The moment someone proves you're incorrect in ascertaining that your potential to attack is suppressed in any given context is the moment your claim is disproved for that given context. I don't understand. The feat allows you to manifest a power. As you earlier have shown, you can manifest a power and attack with it. The stunned condition doesn't prevent you from attacking, but from taking actions in general. If this feat allows you to take actions, and attack, how can you say that you don't threaten? What rules are you supporting your reply on to? On this, I have to concede that the stunned condition is a particular case. It's not so much about Unconditional Power (it has nothing to do with the ability to attack), but about how stunned is written. Simply put my only reasonable conclusion is that you still threaten when you're stunned, if only because the stunned condition doesn't indicate that you cannot attack while stunned. After all, as evidenced in many parts of the core rules, an attack is not an action (even though some actions might involve one attack). By this meaning the added bit "even if it's not your action" would be completely useless. Not necessarily. That part of the sentence merely indicates that you threaten, even when you're not acting. It's not even a matter of whether you're on your turn or not. Regardless of whether you're acting or not, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Since acting is not a factor in this, the simplest way to resolve this is to make an abstraction of actions when determining your threatened squares. These depend on your ability to attack, and your ability to attack doesn't depend on actions (since you can attack even when you're not acting, as evidenced by cleave, AoOs, etc.) I think Egres's point is different. He says that you don't threaten when you have no way to attack your opponent. If you can attack him, in the time frame you want to do so, you threaten him. His viewpoint falls short with respect to AoOs. If your opponent doesn't provoke an AoO, you have no way to attack him outside your turn (general use case). Since you have no way to attack him outside your turn, you do not threaten the opponent. And since you do not threaten your opponent, he no longer provokes AoOs from you (this is a self-terminating loop). If you start to account for potential to attack in order to make the mechanic work, then you have to account for all potential, not just that of AoOs (since nothing limits the scope of out-of-turn attacks to AoOs). It's my opponent turn. I'm flat footed. I have no readied actions and no spells to help me. I ask the DM if I can attack my opponent. He answers "no". I don't threaten him. Not having the chance to attack an opponent and not being able to do it are two different things. You kind of reasoning fails here: I'm not flat-footed. I have no readied actions or spells to help me. I just finished my turn. I have an opponent within melee range, but he has yet to do anything. I ask the DM if I can attack my opponent. He says "no." Do I threaten him? Your example was about having an opportunity to attack, not the ability to attack. Hmmm, this would mean that an invisible stunned creature still threatens, since his opponents cannot know that he's stunned. Sorry, but I don't buy that. This would also imply that if my enemy doesn't know I'm there I don't threaten him. I'll grant you, the perspective I offered was perhaps inappropriate. Regardless of perspective, the mechanic of threat is not perspective-dependent. You just need to consider the facts.
Marcus Majarra 06-26-07, 05:06 PM	The rules do say that if you are on your opponent0s turn you cannot make AoOs, and if you are out of readied actions or such you cannot attack. Where is this stated, precisely? Are you able to attack if you aren't able to attack during your opponent's turn? Nope. This is only true during your opponent's turn. Silly reply, indeed. You say that a stunned creature can't attack beacause can't take actions. If the Unconditional Power feat allows action, it allows attacks. How can it allows actions and not allowing attack (i.e, an action?) Try to reason before posting, please. I responded to this in my reply to Psion_3 above. Quite simply: stunned characters threaten because making an attack is not an action. Thus, being prevented from acting in no way interferes with your ability to attack.
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 04:40 AM	On this, I have to concede that the stunned condition is a particular case. It's not so much about Unconditional Power (it has nothing to do with the ability to attack), but about how stunned is written. Simply put my only reasonable conclusion is that you still threaten when you're stunned, if only because the stunned condition doesn't indicate that you cannot attack while stunned. After all, as evidenced in many parts of the core rules, an attack is not an action (even though some actions might involve one attack). Quite simply: stunned characters threaten because making an attack is not an action. Thus, being prevented from acting in no way interferes with your ability to attack. So you are saying that stunned creatures are able to make AoO? :eek: I didn't follow the discussion for a couple of days and what do I find now?... I make you my compliments, this is a masterpiece between absurdities... :clap: BTW, I'm already waiting for Leilond's observations... We passed nearly 10 page to explain you our understanding of the rule (only on this forum), but I hadn't the opportunity to better understand some points of your.
Egres 06-27-07, 04:45 AM	By the way "even when it is not your action" tell us that it isn't an issue to consider at all What meaning would you give to the original sentence without the "even if it is not your action"? No. But the rules say us that it isn't important for threatening issue ("even when it is not your action") Nope. The rules say that you must be able to attack, even in your opponent's turn. Sure. I said something like 100 hundred times that the fact I think you're wrong doesn't mean you're wrong Don't be silly. you said that he "doesn't understand". That has nothing to do with being right or wrong: you have offendend him. Deal with it. The rules say that you can threaten if you can attack, even WHEN it's not your action. So I threaten with the Unconditional Power feat, even if I'm stunned? To say that you can make AoO until you FIRST verify if you threaten What if I'm stunned and I have the Unconditional Power feat? With the feat I can make an attack, and thus I know I can threaten. This proves you wrong. Did you verified that you threaten? If you didn't you cannot say that, because you must FIRST verify the threatening and only after that you can say if you can or cannot make an AoO into a square Can you know that you threaten before knowing that you can make attacks or not? Think about it. I don't know. Show me that situation and I will respond. Does that situation prevent to attack as a whole? Does that situation prevent to act as a whole? At first glance I will respond that you threaten, but I will be more sure if you explain me the condition you're talking about Think about a condition that allows you only AoOs. Would you threaten in such condition? I don't know if that power let you attack while stunned, I don't think so, but let's admit you can Unconditional Power [Metapsionic] Disabling conditions do not hold you back. Benefit To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. Your mental strength is enough to overcome some otherwise disabling conditions. You can manifest an unconditional power when you are dazed, confused, nauseated, or stunned. Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers. Using this feat increases the power point cost of the power by 8. The power’s total cost cannot exceed your manifester level. You don't threaten immediatley before attacking and do not threaten immediately after. So I threaten in the timeframe I attack, right? And, how do you know that? You can attack without threatening, it's in the rule (for instance "unarmed attack") Only if a specific rule says it. But here the only rule that prevents me form attacking is ersaed by the feat. Thus, I threaten, and you know that I threaten becaue I can attack. I threaten becasue I can attack, and not the opposite. Think about it, and let's see if you can admit that you are wrong. But if we admit you can attack, you still don't threaten because you're still stunned The stunned conmdition doesn't say that you don't threaten. It says that you can't take actions: this is what allows no threatening. But if the feat removes this limit, you do threaten, beacuse there's nothing more that stops you from acting. Spells and psionic powers can "break the rules". The fact that a spell or a power break a rule doesn't mean that the rule stop working in the same way. This feat doesn't break the rules: it only erase a limiti, like SSwiftness. This shows that you threaten if you can attack, and not the opposite. Do you know the meaning of that word? Kind people use it when they ask to others to make something, to demostrate a bit of respect and the fact that it is not nice to give order to people that do not need to obey you "Psion, you don't udnerstand..." He isn’t speaking about “ready actions or spells and such” but only about “Snake's swiftness and readied actions”. So you can use other spell and such to attack. The important thing is that you don’t need AoO to attack out of your turn. The question remains the same: what if you have none of these "such"? Anyway when you finish AoO you can’t attack in the same way you can’t do without spell and such. So you threat or you don’t threat in both cases (according you). My god....tell me this is an illusion. No! In our interpretation that phrase is vital because it say that to be out of your turn it’s a condition to ignore. If I can do regular attack (ignoring that isn’t my turn) I threat. In your interpretation instead that phrase it’s useless. I showed that same post ago. Regular attack...strange. Marcus said that there's no regular attacks. But in our interpretation there’s the second phrase: If out of your turn you can do regular attack (ignoring you are out of your turn) you threat. Regular attacks again... You have give that base. If it’s false it’s your fault. I repeat: use a real spell for your question. Actually, the base he's referring to is the "You threaten and then you can attack". I have shown that this is wrong with the Uncoditional lPower feat. Definition: threat is a prerequisite to make an AoO (I Say this, and I proved) "And I proved"..ahahah. Let's move on. Hypothesis: the spell give AoO (it’s your Hypothesis, if it’s false it’s your fault) Deduction: the spell give threat because it’s obligatory give threat to give AoO. The same goes with our interpretation. We sytart from a different viewpoint: if you can attack, you do threaten. Can I make AoO? Yes. So I threaten. End of apparent looping. the sam goes for you: you must before know if you can attack, and after you can say if you threaten or not. If threaten is a prerequisite, you should know that you threaten before. this proves yo uwrong. To take the Dodge feat you must before know that you have Dex 13: if you doesn't know before, you can't take it: talking about prerequsiites here, my friend. Definition: to entry in this club you must to be major Hypothesis: I see you in the club Deduction: you are major The Convention of Bruxlees has some hypothesis. If one of those hyphotesis aplies, the Convention appies. but in order to apply those hypothesis, you must appaly the Convention. It's an apparent loop, cause they influence each other. You say that the ability to to attack in a specific timeframe doesn't help a stunned creature to threaten, am I right? yes. So a creature can act, can attack, but doesn't threaten. Why? Now I wonder: if a stunned creature can attack, does it threaten? No more example theorical. How can a stunned creature attack? Give me a real official spell. ?!? Didn't you read the Unconditional Power feat? Stunned block attack. Unconditional Power don’t remove stunned. But it removes the limit to action that the stunned condition imposes. Being stunned in itself doesn't block attacks if you remove that bit. Be honest, and reply. You don’t need to be able out of your turn because there’s the second phrase: even when etc.. I hope you remember that phrase by now Only in your interpretation, that leads to silliness like stunned and Unconditional Power. No. It’s say that to be out of your turn it’s a context to ignore. Without that phrase you can’t do regular attack out of your turn, so you don’t threat out of your turn. There are no regular attacks, once more... Read Marcus posts. Are you speaking about when I finish my AoO? My god... No. we don’t know. It don’t say nothing about threat. So it give threat or the spell broke the rules. Like the Unconditional Power feat? ahahah. What' if I say that you can only threaten but not attack? Total Defense with the PHB II feat. On this, I have to concede that the stunned condition is a particular case. It's not so much about Unconditional Power (it has nothing to do with the ability to attack), but about how stunned is written. Simply put my only reasonable conclusion is that you still threaten when you're stunned, if only because the stunned condition doesn't indicate that you cannot attack while stunned. After all, as evidenced in many parts of the core rules, an attack is not an action (even though some actions might involve one attack). Ok, so stunned threaten. But the PHB explicitely says that stunned don't threaten. This proves you wrong, Macrus, and for the second time. Time to change your mind? Regardless of whether you're acting or not, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. This doesn't need that added bit. By your interpretation, if nothing blocks attacks, you threaten. Adding "even if it's your opponent's turn" would be meaningless. If you start to account for potential to attack in order to make the mechanic work, then you have to account for all potential, not just that of AoOs (since nothing limits the scope of out-of-turn attacks to AoOs). I account for potential AoOs, becasue I must be able to do them in order to use them if someone provokes them. But for ready actions, spells and such, without them I cannot attack if AoOs are negated. I'm not flat-footed. I have no readied actions or spells to help me. I just finished my turn. I have an opponent within melee range, but he has yet to do anything. I ask the DM if I can attack my opponent. He says "no." Do I threaten him? Actually, the DM is wrong here. The answer is "yes", becasue AoOs aren't negated. I'll grant you, the perspective I offered was perhaps inappropriate. Regardless of perspective, the mechanic of threat is not perspective-dependent. You just need to consider the facts. the facts say that with the Unconditional Power feat a stunned creature threatens in the timeframe he attacks. Thus, threaten is derived from ther concrete ability to make an attack. Are you able to attack if you aren't able to attack during your opponent's turn? Nope. This is only true during your opponent's turn. Agreed. Then? Quite simply: stunned characters threaten because making an attack is not an action. Thus, being prevented from acting in no way interferes with your ability to attack. 1) By your reasoning, paralized creatures do threaten. 2) The PHB proves you wrong. Time to change your mind, or to debate only for your pride's sake, Marcus?
Leilond 06-27-07, 06:12 AM	All I will say on this post is only my opinion My opinions aren't better than other users opinions I think I'm right, but I can be wrong BTW, I'm already waiting for Leilond's observations... I'm waiting to stop "defending" my understanding from other poster observation I will start to ask clarification about your understanding when there cannot be confusion between the two arguments As you can see I stopped to talk about "interpretation" because I think there isn't an interpretation problem, but an understanding problem What meaning would you give to the original sentence without the "even if it is not your action"? The meaning that you give to the rule. I think that without that phrase the rule work just like you say The rules say that you must be able to attack, even in your opponent's turn. I think you really misunderstand that phrase. This doesn't mean you did, it's only my idea Don't be silly. you said that he "doesn't understand". That has nothing to do with being right or wrong: you have offendend him. Deal with it. It's not your concern to say if he feel or doesn't feel offended. If he will ask my apologize I will give him. Don't worry So I threaten with the Unconditional Power feat, even if I'm stunned? Special powers and spell can break the rules. I really don't matter that issue. I can say "YES you threaten" but it's a special power with special rules and really have no effect on the general working of the rule What if I'm stunned and I have the Unconditional Power feat? With the feat I can make an attack, and thus I know I can threaten. This proves you wrong. This prove nothing. It only prove that a spell/special power has his special rule, like the "feather falling spell" can be casted during opponent turn. Special rule for a specific situation Can you know that you threaten before knowing that you can make attacks or not? No you can't. But be able to attack has nothing to do with AdO or turns Think about a condition that allows you only AoOs. Would you threaten in such condition? Different condition can have different rules. Show me the situation you're talking about and I will respond For instance: you drink a potion. You cannot attack but you still threaten because drinking a potion don't prevent you to be able to attack, only you don't have the opportunituy to do that Unconditional Power [Metapsionic] Disabling conditions do not hold you back. Benefit To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. Your mental strength is enough to overcome some otherwise disabling conditions. You can manifest an unconditional power when you are dazed, confused, nauseated, or stunned. Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers. Using this feat increases the power point cost of the power by 8. The power’s total cost cannot exceed your manifester level. And? A power with special rule that break the normal rules. Like the fly spell, that let you fly, breaking the rule that prevent you to fly Totally insignificant to our pourpose So I threaten in the timeframe I attack, right? It's a special power with special rules. It doesn't affect the general rule Only if a specific rule says it. But here the only rule that prevents me form attacking is ersaed by the feat. Thus, I threaten, and you know that I threaten becaue I can attack. I threaten becasue I can attack, and not the opposite. Think about it, and let's see if you can admit that you are wrong. I think you're wrong, that doesn't mean you are. It's only my idea You can attack without threatening because threatening isn't a prerequisite for attacking. It isn't written anywhere I can be able to attack without threatening The stunned conmdition doesn't say that you don't threaten. It says that you can't take actions: this is what allows no threatening. But if the feat removes this limit, you do threaten, beacuse there's nothing more that stops you from acting. Ok. You'll threaten if you are not stunned. And? This feat doesn't break the rules: it only erase a limiti, like SSwiftness. This shows that you threaten if you can attack, and not the opposite. Wrong (I think) The power break the rules because let you do something that the rules prevent you do to. You can attack while stunned, that is totally against the rule, like casting a spell during opponent turn, it cannot be done but you can do it with "feather fall" So, you dimostrated only that some special power let you do things that you normally cannot do "And I proved"..ahahah. Now let's look on the rules as written Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. ... Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. ... Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity So yes, it is proven that threatening a square is a prerequisite for AoO on that square Can I make AoO? Yes. So I threaten. But the rules say to ignore the fact that it isn't your turn. So you're making the wrong assumptions (my ideas, I think so, I can be wrong) he sam goes for you: you must before know if you can attack, and after you can say if you threaten or not. If threaten is a prerequisite, you should know that you threaten before. No, because threatening isn't a prerequisite for attacking. You didn't quoted any rule that say that So a creature can act, can attack, but doesn't threaten. It is possible. An unarmed creature can attack, can act but doesn't threaten But the PHB explicitely says that stunned don't threaten. No, I agree with you that I do not threaten, but the PHB doesn't say that "explicitely" This doesn't need that added bit. By your interpretation, if nothing blocks attacks, you threaten. Adding "even if it's your opponent's turn" would be meaningless. No, without that phrase you cannot threaten during your opponent turn if you have no way to make AoO I account for potential AoOs, becasue I must be able to do them in order to use them if someone provokes them. But for ready actions, spells and such, without them I cannot attack if AoOs are negated. Without them? Why "without them"? Aren't them "part of the game"? By the way the rules say us to ignore the fact that it is not my action, so the opportunity to do AoO is totally insignificant (I think) The answer is "yes", becasue AoOs aren't negated. You're wrong (I think) because the rules say us to ignore AoO for the threatening issue I didn't proved nothing, and I didn't want to do, I simply explained the way I understand the rule I think that phrase means what I've explained I can be wrong That doesn't mean I am It only mean that there's the possibility tha I'm wrong I'm sure I'm not, but this again doesn't mean I'm not
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 06:32 AM	I'm waiting to stop "defending" my understanding from other poster observation I will start to ask clarification about your understanding when there cannot be confusion between the two arguments As you can see I stopped to talk about "interpretation" because I think there isn't an interpretation problem, but an understanding problem As you want... we are here, in the meantime... :rolleyes: In fact I think that we understand your point, but we think it's based on a wrong interpretation and leads to uncongruent conclusions: that's the reason why Egres, Psion_3, Blackstorm and me are insisting. I didn't proved nothing, and I didn't want to do You didn't want to prove it? Why are you still here then? :D
Leilond 06-27-07, 06:51 AM	As you want... we are here, in the meantime... :rolleyes: In fact I think that we understand your point, but we think it's based on a wrong interpretation and leads to uncongruent conclusions: that's the reason why Egres, Psion_3, Blackstorm and me are insisting. I know. Untli you ask, I answer You didn't want to prove it? Why are you still here then? :D To discuss, interact and pheraps learn things I read EVERY single post with much care. And I reply with the same care. My goal isn't "to prove that I'm right" but to make all those users that read my post understand me, my understanding and how I arrived to that understanding. I really don't matter if users agree or not with me. The things that I really care is that those users have no doubt on how I undersand a rule why I understand that rule that way Everything that is written can make me change my mind. It didn't happened till now, because I saw no evidence that I'm wrong and I see a lot of evidence that I'm right. But different people see different things observing the same object, it's part of the human being nature. For this reason I still read and still write, because the things that I read can be very usefull to me and the things that I write can be very usefull to others Pheraps someone will write something that will make me completely change my mind For this reason I still read Pheraps something that I write will make someone change his mind For this reason I still write Not because it's my goal to make anyone change his mind, or to demostrate that I'm the best ruler out there
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 08:40 AM	My goal isn't "to prove that I'm right" but to make all those users that read my post understand me, my understanding and how I arrived to that understanding. So your only goal is to be clear and not to prove that you are right? You are clear. We're not saiyng that you aren't. We're saying that you are wrong...
Leilond 06-27-07, 08:49 AM	So your only goal is to be clear and not to prove that you are right? You are clear. We're not saiyng that you aren't. We're saying that you are wrong... It isn't my goal to demostrate I'm right, but is someone say me that I'm wrong, I simply reply telling because I think I'm not The fact that "to demostrate that I'm right" isn't my goal, doesn't mean that I won't discuss with people in a kind manner, replying to everything they point me out There's a difference between harldy try to convince others that they're wrong and simply reply to people that say you're wrong. If you prefer I can stop responding you, just tell me
Marcus Majarra 06-27-07, 09:16 AM	So you are saying that stunned creatures are able to make AoO? I didn't follow the discussion for a couple of days and what do I find now?... I make you my compliments, this is a masterpiece between absurdities... Sarcasm will not bring this discussion forward. And as absurd as you might find it, my claim is consistent with the RAW. Here's the definition for stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). While a stunned creature can take no actions, attacks are not implicitly actions. More often than not, attacks are a part of certain actions (such as when making a full attack, a charge, casting a touch-range spell, etc.) In some cases, attacking is not even part of an action, with attacks of opportunity and cleave attacks. It's fairly reasonable to assume the designers made an oversight with respect to the stunned condition, and it wouldn't be a stretch to simply adjudicate that not being able to act also prevents you from attacking, but this is currently inconsistent with the RAW. Ok, so stunned threaten. But the PHB explicitely says that stunned don't threaten. This proves you wrong, Macrus, and for the second time. Time to change your mind? If the PHB proves me wrong, you should quote the relevant part that proves me wrong. As it is, I've browsed through the PHB, DMG, online glossary, FAQ, and errata, and I found no such evidence. In fact, the only place where I've seen anything that remotely says this is in a RotG article. The thing is: the article has nothing to do with threat, it merely discusses how being unabled to act interferes with aggressive nonactions: Aggressive Nonactions: There's only one activity that falls into this category: the attack of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is similar to the attack action. In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity. I see the RotG as RAI and I like this kind of conclusion (albeit the author might have generalized the idea that AoOs are the only kind of aggressive nonaction). Keep in mind, however, that even under the assumption that this article is consistent with the RAW, it still doesn't demonstrate how you do not threaten, even when stunned. I've gone through other articles, focusing on threat, and I found the following definition: When Is a Square Threatened? Since an attack of opportunity involves a threatened square, a short discussion of exactly when a square is "threatened" is in order: • A creature threatens all squares into which it can make an armed melee attack. To be "armed," a creature must wield at least one weapon, either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon. Most creatures have at least 5 feet of reach, so they threaten all squares adjacent to their spaces (including diagonally). If a creature has a reach of more than 5 feet (by virtue of its size or because it wields a reach weapon, or both) it threatens more squares. A creature can attack into its own space, and so it threatens that square or squares as well. See page 149 in the Player's Handbook for a discussion of a creature's space. As you can see, the author here is explaining how threat has to do with being armed and within reach of an opponent. There's no mention of requiring an opportunity to attack, and this is important, as threat is clearly meant to be a constant factor. This doesn't need that added bit. By your interpretation, if nothing blocks attacks, you threaten. Adding "even if it's your opponent's turn" would be meaningless. By strict RAW, if nothing prevents you from attacking, you can attack, and thus threaten. If I take the RotG as rules clarifications, I can even go so far as to state that the only thing you need to have threatened squares is to be armed and within reach of them. You should also take notice that there's no such clause as "even if it's your opponent's turn" with threatened squares. The exact clause is "even when it is not your action" (PHB137). Turns aren't an issue with threatened squares. This clause merely clarifies that you have threatened squares even when you're not acting. I account for potential AoOs, becasue I must be able to do them in order to use them if someone provokes them. But for ready actions, spells and such, without them I cannot attack if AoOs are negated. Why do you limit the scope of the allowed potential only to AoOs? Where is it indicated in the rules that the only way to attack outside your turn are AoOs? You're implying that the default way to attack outside your turn are AoOs (hence "without them I cannot attack if AoOs are negated.") This kind of conclusion is arbitrary, at best, and has no support in fact (if it does, by all means do quote it.) Actually, the DM is wrong here. The answer is "yes", becasue AoOs aren't negated. Rule #0: the DM is never wrong. (j/k) The thing is: at the moment you're asking the question, you're still unable to attack. The opponent doesn't provoke an AoO, therefore you can't execute an AoO against him. This is why the DM is right in this instance. At that particular point in time, it is impossible for me to attack my opponent. I have the potential to attack my opponent at this time, but it's not because I have AoOs left. It's because I'm still in a position and condition to make a melee attack against the opponent. If I have no readied actions and my opponent does nothing to provoke an AoO, I will not be able to attack him when it's not my action (excluding all outside factors for simplicity's sake.) By your definition, this means I don't threaten my opponent. This is inconsistent. the facts say that with the Unconditional Power feat a stunned creature threatens in the timeframe he attacks. Thus, threaten is derived from ther concrete ability to make an attack. No, Unconditional Power merely grants the ability to manifest a power, not the ability to attack. If a power involves attack rolls, you cannot make these attack rolls (going by the RotG definition that if something prevents you from acting, it also prevents you from attacking.) This is no different than manifesting a psionic power while paralyzed. You're still able to manifest the power; you just can't deliver it. Furthermore, the entire Unconditional Power point is relatively moot, since "only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers" (EPH52). Since when can you attack opponents with personal or self-affecting powers? 1) By your reasoning, paralized creatures do threaten. 2) The PHB proves you wrong. 1) You're right: I do conclude that paralyzed creatures do threaten (assuming they're still armed and within reach), based on the assumption that the only thing you need to threaten is to be armed and within reach (as explained in PHB137 and in the RotG). They won't actually be making any attacks, however. 2) WHERE?
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 09:43 AM	A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). While a stunned creature can take no actions, attacks are not implicitly actions. More often than not, attacks are a part of certain actions (such as when making a full attack, a charge, casting a touch-range spell, etc.) In some cases, attacking is not even part of an action, with attacks of opportunity and cleave attacks. Read better: the definition of "Action" includes this: ... Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally donÂ’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else. ... So, "Nonactions" are Actions by the RAW. And since AoO are Nonactions, they're also Actions by the RAW. The same we can say for Regular Attacks: Attack Making an attack is a standard action. More clear and explicit than this... When Is a Square Threatened? Since an attack of opportunity involves a threatened square, a short discussion of exactly when a square is "threatened" is in order: • A creature threatens all squares into which it can make an armed melee attack. To be "armed," a creature must wield at least one weapon, either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon. Most creatures have at least 5 feet of reach, so they threaten all squares adjacent to their spaces (including diagonally). If a creature has a reach of more than 5 feet (by virtue of its size or because it wields a reach weapon, or both) it threatens more squares. A creature can attack into its own space, and so it threatens that square or squares as well. See page 149 in the Player's Handbook for a discussion of a creature's space. As you can see, the author here is explaining how threat has to do with being armed and within reach of an opponent. There's no mention of requiring an opportunity to attack, and this is important, as threat is clearly meant to be a constant factor. I don't see any mention to the constance of a threatened area... There's instead a clear mention to the ability to attack (in red). The "even when it's not your action" part is even missing... and following to read in the Part Two of the article we find a new point: Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). What we have here? No threaten? Why? Maybe because you are not able to attack that creature, (though you can try to strike the square in which that creature is...)
Leilond 06-27-07, 10:35 AM	More clear and explicit than this... It say that DURING YOUR TURN you can attack with a standard action It doesn't say that every attack is an action I agree with you on the meaning (I think they didn't write it because it's considered obvious), but if you are so lawyer you have to be lawyer until the end, and if you want to demostrate that EVERY attack is an action you must do do more than demostrate that an attack can be done as standard action Or are you saying that every attack is as standard action? You can attack in your turn without any standard action (you can AoO during your turn) So you demostrated only that you can use a standard action to deliver an attack. But there are different ways to attack without using any "action type" (AoO doesn't use any action type, nor standard, nor swift, nor immediate, nor move or something else) What we have here? No threaten? Why? Maybe because you are not able to attack that creature, (though you can try to strike the square in which that creature is...) That's sound LOGICAL. You cannot attack a creature (nor in your turn, nor during opponent turn, never) but you can only attack the square It's an interpretation that perfectly stay in my understanding of the rule You don't threaten the creature because you cannot attack that creature. So, if we accept those ROTG as not wrong, my understanding of the rule still work perfectly But if we say that ROTG is not wrong, I've to point you a phrase on that article Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe. So, if we accept that ROTG as correct, it completely support my understanding of the rule
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 10:41 AM	(AoO doesn't use any action type, nor standard, nor swift, nor immediate, nor move or something else) Read better. AoO are Nonactions. Nonactions are Actions by the RAW.
Blackstorm_SK 06-27-07, 10:45 AM	He isn’t speaking about “ready actions or spells and such” but only about “Snake's swiftness and readied actions”. So you can use other spell and such to attack. The important thing is that you don’t need AoO to attack out of your turn. If you don't have redied actions, spells or such, you need it. Anyway when you finish AoO you can’t attack in the same way you can’t do without spell and such. So you threat or you don’t threat in both cases (according you). Ah, I see... a wordplay, uh? I think that the not left/not able to do was clear. In our interpretation that phrase is vital because it say that to be out of your turn it’s a condition to ignore. If I can do regular attack (ignoring that isn’t my turn) I threat. In your interpretation instead that phrase it’s useless. I showed that same post ago. So, tell me, I can do rugular attack if it's not my turn? Same as you when finish AoO. Finish? God. Read these 10 pages. But in our interpretation there’s the second phrase: If out of your turn you can do regular attack (ignoring you are out of your turn) you threat. How I can, out of my turn, make reg attacks, w/o readied actions, spells or such? I remember to you that to be flat footed don’t block regular attack. So? To be out of your turn neither (for the second phrase). It don't do it only because w/o spells or such, you cannot make regular attack out of your turn. I hope you aren’t making worplay. It’s different because to say “give AoO imply give threat too” it’s a deduction, to say “if you can do AoO then you threat” it’s a definition. From wich you can make the deduction. You give that definition and you loop, in effect. Definition: to entry in this club you must to be major Hypothesis: I see you in the club Deduction: you are major Can I say that you need to be seen in the club to be major? No I can not. Can you say that I'm major if you see me in hte club? No more example theorical. How can a stunned creature attack? Give me a real official spell. Snake's Swiftness? I have already aswered Stunned block attack. Unconditional Power don’t remove stunned. And exactly where the stunned condition state that you cannot attack? This, inherently, makes no sense. Here's why: 1) Nothing explicitly indicates that you're unable to attack. This is the most obvious reason. Why should? It's not clear that you cannot make standard attacks out of your turn, except for spells or such? 2) Let's assume it works like you say. When are you able to attack outside your turn? Is it when you still have AoOs left? This cannot be: you do not have the possibility to attack outside your turn unless an opponent provokes an AoO from you. Extending this fact, if you cannot attack, you are thus unable to threaten as well. But then, if you do not threaten, no opponent can provoke an AoO from you, since the opponent needs to perform certain actions while in a threatened square, and you do not threaten that square since you're unable to attack at that particular moment. This is a loop of incoherence. Why? I can attack in this timeframe? Yes -> I threaten, No-> I don't threat. Or if you want to take circumstance into account, you need to keep the focus of the restrictions within the context of said circumstance. The moment someone proves you're incorrect in ascertaining that your potential to attack is suppressed in any given context is the moment your claim is disproved for that given context. Someone did it? I've missed. Simply put my only reasonable conclusion is that you still threaten when you're stunned, if only because the stunned condition doesn't indicate that you cannot attack while stunned. Hmmm... you know that this sentece proves that your point of view is not correct? After all, as evidenced in many parts of the core rules, an attack is not an action (even though some actions might involve one attack). I don't know how to say, but the rules states that attack is a standard action. Not necessarily. That part of the sentence merely indicates that you threaten, even when you're not acting. So a paralyzed character threaten? He's not acting... Not having the chance to attack an opponent and not being able to do it are two different things. You kind of reasoning fails here: I'm not flat-footed. I have no readied actions or spells to help me. I just finished my turn. I have an opponent within melee range, but he has yet to do anything. I ask the DM if I can attack my opponent. He says "no." Do I threaten him? But you actually can attack your opponent.
Leilond 06-27-07, 10:45 AM	Read better. AoO are Nonactions. Nonactions are Actions by the RAW. I said I agree with that with you... only was playing your game... and the rest of my post? If you don't have redied actions, spells or such, you need it. The rule say us it isn't necessary (even if...) So, tell me, I can do rugular attack if it's not my turn? Again. It isn't importa the turn by the RAW. It is important the general condition. How I can, out of my turn, make reg attacks, w/o readied actions, spells or such? The rule say us that you don't need to have the opportunity to attack during opponent turn to threaten. So it totally doesn't matter if you cannot attack during opponent turn, the only things that matter is that the general condition do not prevent "any form of attack". Drinking a potion (for instance) while balancing do not prevent me from attack, only I won't have the opportunity to do so, but my general condition is that of a threatening character It don't do it only because w/o spells or such, you cannot make regular attack out of your turn. But the rule say us that "out of your turn" isn't important. It clearly say us to ignore turns Snake's Swiftness? Spell and special powers have their special rule, that can easly go against the rules. You cannot cast a spell during opponent turn, but you can cast "feather fall" during opponent turn And exactly where the stunned condition state that you cannot attack? When it say "you cannot act". If you think that it doesn't mean that you cannot attack, then you threaten while stunned Why should? It's not clear that you cannot make standard attacks out of your turn, except for spells or such? Turns aren't an issue. The rule say us to ignore the fact that it is or not your action. Why? I can attack in this timeframe? Yes -> I threaten, No-> I don't threat. You can attack without threatening.
Kalvalastir 06-27-07, 12:46 PM	Turns aren't an issue. The rule say us to ignore the fact that it is or not your action. There's something i don't understand now... something flawed in your reasoning that I'm starting to focus only now... If you have to ignore the fact that it is or not your action, you still must have the possibility to attack, in order to threaten... So how do you determine the possibility to attack? While we are saying "if you can just attack" (according to the RAW), you are saying "if there are conditions that explicitly negates attacks", but this is something you are adding to the rules... Now please, answer me: how do you determine threat for a confused character? There's no explicit limit to attack as a whole, only a random list... it's a particular status in which you may attack, or may not, depending on the result of % dice...
Blackstorm_SK 06-27-07, 05:40 PM	The rule say us it isn't necessary (even if...) Again. It isn't importa the turn by the RAW. It is important the general condition. The rule say us that you don't need to have the opportunity to attack during opponent turn to threaten. So it totally doesn't matter if you cannot attack during opponent turn, the only things that matter is that the general condition do not prevent "any form of attack". Drinking a potion (for instance) while balancing do not prevent me from attack, only I won't have the opportunity to do so, but my general condition is that of a threatening character But the rule say us that "out of your turn" isn't important. It clearly say us to ignore turns You're aware that you continue to point out the "rules says some silly thing" and you don't reply to my question? I'm not asking what you say that rules states. I'm asking other things. If you can't or don't want reply, don't do it at all. Spell and special powers have their special rule, that can easly go against the rules. You cannot cast a spell during opponent turn, but you can cast "feather fall" during opponent turn Again, you don't reply my post. I'm not asking this. I'm asking some other thing. Can you reply w/o get in the "rules says that you must ignore your turn" thing? I've uderstood your point of view: but I'm asking another thing. Get it? When it say "you cannot act". If you think that it doesn't mean that you cannot attack, then you threaten while stunned I reword it. Where it says EXPLICITLY that you cannot attack? Turns aren't an issue. The rule say us to ignore the fact that it is or not your action. Yeah, yeah. I get it. Really. Now, can you reply to what I'm asking? You can attack without threatening. So?
Egres 06-28-07, 03:22 AM	Nope: it shows that your entire point is flawed. In fact, if you say "yes you threaten", I must ask "why?". This prove nothing. It only prove that a spell/special power has his special rule, like the "feather falling spell" can be casted during opponent turn. Special rule for a specific situation Actually the Unconditional POwer doesn't breake any rules. In fact, Feather Fall is an immediate action casting spell, so casting it on your opponent's turn is perfectly covered by the rules. [QUOTE]Can you know that you threaten before knowing that you can make attacks or not? No you can't. But be able to attack has nothing to do with AdO or turns If you don't know that you threaten before knowing if you can attack your point is flawed, since in your reasoning threatening is a prerequisite for AoOs. Different condition can have different rules. Show me the situation you're talking about and I will respond Actually, all the conditions follow the same rules: the D&D system. The condition was created by Psion_3: is theoretical: can you argue on a supposed base? And? A power with special rule that break the normal rules. Like the fly spell, that let you fly, breaking the rule that prevent you to fly Totally insignificant to our pourpose Are you kidding me?!? The fly spell break the rules? The Unconditional Power doesn't break any rules: it only shows that your point is wrong. It's a special power with special rules. It doesn't affect the general rule unofortunatekly there's no general rule. It only shows that the timeframe is a necessary condition to know if you threaten or not. Didn't you notice what happened to Marcus's points? To e consistent, he's now saying that stunned creatures threaten. He's more honest than you. Ok. You'll threaten if you are not stunned. And? Nope. Read it again: I threaten even if stunned. The power break the rules because let you do something that the rules prevent you do to. You can attack while stunned, that is totally against the rule, like casting a spell during opponent turn, it cannot be done but you can do it with "feather fall" Again with this silly Ferater Fall example? Can't you see how falwed is your reasoning? By your logic even the Fireball spell is flawed, since humans cannot send massive amount of fire explosions around! Heck, you are now saying that the fly spell breaks the rules! If something break the rules, is wrong and must be errated, you know: should we errata the entire spells system? Not to mention that this is a feat.... So yes, it is proven that threatening a square is a prerequisite for AoO on that square Actually I'm showing that they influece each other: being a prerequyisite leads to the absuridity of a stunned creature threatening: see Marcus's posts. But the rules say to ignore the fact that it isn't your turn. So you're making the wrong assumptions (my ideas, I think so, I can be wrong) If I ignore it, stunned creatures with the UP feat threaten eveen if it's not their action. No, I agree with you that I do not threaten, but the PHB doesn't say that "explicitely" No? http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stunneddontflankop6.jpg Without them? Why "without them"? Aren't them "part of the game"? Even Vorpal swords are part of the game, but without them I can't chop my opponent's head with a natural 20. Ok, so stunned threaten. But the PHB explicitely says that stunned don't threaten. This proves you wrong, Macrus, and for the second time. Time to change your mind? If the PHB proves me wrong, you should quote the relevant part that proves me wrong. Marcus...........I already did. http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stunneddontflankop6.jpg Time to change your mind? I'm talking seriously. Why do you limit the scope of the allowed potential only to AoOs? Where is it indicated in the rules that the only way to attack outside your turn are AoOs? You're implying that the default way to attack outside your turn are AoOs (hence "without them I cannot attack if AoOs are negated.") This kind of conclusion is arbitrary, at best, and has no support in fact (if it does, by all means do quote it.) You are right: that's why I don't say "flat footed don't threaten", but "if you are flat footed, and there are no other ways to attack on your opponent's turn, you don't threaten". Thats' quite different, you know. Rule #0: the DM is never wrong. (j/k) Eh..you never had DMs like the ones I have met in the past...:D The thing is: at the moment you're asking the question, you're still unable to attack. Noo. I'm able, but there are no opportunities. I can read, but I have no copies of the Herald Tribune at hand. No, Unconditional Power merely grants the ability to manifest a power, not the ability to attack. If a power involves attack rolls, you cannot make these attack rolls (going by the RotG definition that if something prevents you from acting, it also prevents you from attacking.) The problem here is that the Unconditional Power feat removes the "no action" limit. In fact, without that limit removed, you could'nt manifest the power. So, if you can manifest it, you can attack with it: plain and simple. 1) You're right: I do conclude that paralyzed creatures do threaten (assuming they're still armed and within reach), based on the assumption that the only thing you need to threaten is to be armed and within reach (as explained in PHB137 and in the RotG). They won't actually be making any attacks, however. And you don't find it...odd? 2) The PHB proves you wrong. 2) WHERE? http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stunneddontflankop6.jpg
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 03:54 AM	Good point Egres. Here we have another contraddiction between rules...
Leilond 06-28-07, 04:09 AM	All that I will say on this post will be only MY OPINION When it is written "you're wrong" I intend "in my honest opinion". I do not write it every row to keep the message short There's something i don't understand now... something flawed in your reasoning that I'm starting to focus only now... If you have to ignore the fact that it is or not your action, you still must have the possibility to attack, in order to threaten... So how do you determine the possibility to attack? While we are saying "if you can just attack" (according to the RAW), you are saying "if there are conditions that explicitly negates attacks", but this is something you are adding to the rules... Now please, answer me: how do you determine threat for a confused character? There's no explicit limit to attack as a whole, only a random list... it's a particular status in which you may attack, or may not, depending on the result of % dice... First. We must agree on one fact. After rolling the % dice, do we consider that "status" as permanent until the next roll or until something change that status? I will say yes So Before the first roll he threaten normally After each roll, and until nothing change the status in some way 0-10: you threaten the caster until next turn 11-20: you threaten normally until your next turn 21-50: you don't threaten because you cannot act until your next turn 51-70: you threaten normally 71-100: you threaten the creature you chose as target of your attacks The rules also say "Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes." So if someone attack me the condition change my general condition and it become like the 71-100 This is how it work in my understanding You're aware that you continue to point out the "rules says some silly thing" and you don't reply to my question? I'm not asking what you say that rules states. I'm asking other things. If you can't or don't want reply, don't do it at all. Are you aware... not you're aware. When there's a question a verb must be placed before the subject Are you aware that you're pointing me question that I consider totally irrilevant to the rule. Are you aware that you want me to reply using your understanding to explain mine? Again, you don't reply my post. I'm not asking this. I'm asking some other thing. Can you reply w/o get in the "rules says that you must ignore your turn" thing? I've uderstood your point of view: but I'm asking another thing. Get it? Again, I'm responding you, telling that you're request is totally irrilevant for my understanding. So, whenever is the answer to that question, it won't change the working of the rule I reword it. Where it says EXPLICITLY that you cannot attack? A creature that cannot act cannot attack. Attacking, as you pointed, is an action, so you cannot attack. This is EXPLICIT Yeah, yeah. I get it. Really. Now, can you reply to what I'm asking? I did. My answer is "your question is totally irrilevant to our discussion". So, chose the answer that you prefer, that won't change the working of the rule In fact, if you say "yes you threaten", I must ask "why?". I can say "no you don't" if you prefer. It's a special power, and it is totally irrilevant for the general discussion. Special powers and spells have special rules. We are talking about the general working of the rule, not the working of the rule under special circumstances that break the rules Actually the Unconditional POwer doesn't breake any rules. It doesn't? Well, you cannot use that to act while stunned then Actually, all the conditions follow the same rules: the D&D system. The condition was created by Psion_3: is theoretical: can you argue on a supposed base? No, because a teorical condition can come from different pratical situation that can result in different replyies The fly spell break the rules? The Unconditional Power doesn't break any rules: it only shows that your point is wrong. The uncoditional power has a special rule, like cleave, that let you do things that you cannot normally do. It shows nothing unofortunatekly there's no general rule. It only shows that the timeframe is a necessary condition to know if you threaten or not. Didn't you notice what happened to Marcus's points? To e consistent, he's now saying that stunned creatures threaten. He's more honest than you. You're totally wrong (I think)... and please are you talking with me? Well do not use other poster opinion against me. If Marcus want to say me something he will do As you see I stopped to use "our" and "us" and "we". Now I talk only about my understanding, so you can feel free to discuss with me if you want Read it again: I threaten even if stunned. I do not agree, and you know. You cannot act, thus you cannot attack, thus you do not threaten By your logic even the Fireball spell is flawed, since humans cannot send massive amount of fire explosions around! Flawed? Only that is a spell that work with his specific rule. When did I say that a spell that break a rule is flawed? Spells and powers can do things against the rules Actually I'm showing that they influece each other: being a prerequyisite leads to the absuridity of a stunned creature threatening: see Marcus's posts. You're reasoning is flawed and I still told you why and how, I think If I ignore it, stunned creatures with the UP feat threaten eveen if it's not their action. A special power/spell/feat can permit things not permitted by the general rules. Cleave let you make AoO when general rules do not let you do it. A special rule that work differently form a general rule is perfectly normal, but do not invalid the general rule No? http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntflankop6.jpg As I said, a stunned creature cannot act, thus cannot attack, thus cannot threaten You are right: that's why I don't say "flat footed don't threaten", but "if you are flat footed, and there are no other ways to attack on your opponent's turn, you don't threaten". Thats' quite different, you know. I know. But I say "being flat-footed has no influences to your threatening ability" I think you're wrong, pheraps I am The problem here is that the Unconditional Power feat removes the "no action" limit. In fact, without that limit removed, you could'nt manifest the power. So, if you can manifest it, you can attack with it: plain and simple. From the description of the feat it doesn't look like you say. It simply let you "manifest a psicic power" when stunned. It doesn't say you can move or attack while stunned. But if you're right, it is a feat (like cleave) that let you do things that the general rules don't let you do. Irrilevant to the discussion about the general rule
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 04:33 AM	First. We must agree on one fact. After rolling the % dice, do we consider that "status" as permanent until the next roll or until something change that status? I will say yes So Before the first roll he threaten normally After each roll, and until nothing change the status in some way 0-10: you threaten the caster until next turn 11-20: you threaten normally until your next turn 21-50: you don't threaten because you cannot act until your next turn 51-70: you threaten normally 71-100: you threaten the creature you chose as target of your attacks The rules also say "Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes." So if someone attack me the condition change my general condition and it become like the 71-100 This is how it work in my understanding Mmhhh... let me remind you were basing your assumption on Conditions like Stunned, or Nauseated... but the 0-10 (or the 11-20, or whatever) are not actually "Conditions"... the Condition is "Confused" and has a random behaviour. It seems to me that you are changing your cards... BTW, you didn't answer to the first part of my post: If you have to ignore the fact that it is or not your action, you still must have the possibility to attack, in order to threaten... So how do you determine the possibility to attack? While we are saying "if you can just attack" (according to the RAW), you are saying "if there are conditions that explicitly negates attacks", but this is something you are adding to the rules... How do you determine the possibility to attack? BTR, please...
Leilond 06-28-07, 05:04 AM	Mmhhh... let me remind you were basing your assumption on Conditions like Stunned, or Nauseated... but the 0-10 (or the 11-20, or whatever) are not actually "Conditions"... the Condition is "Confused" and has a random behaviour. Sorry, I totally disagree. "Confused" is a condition that can have DIFFERENT consequences. Every consequence has his special rule that can make you threatening or not. It seems to me that you are changing your cards... BTW, you didn't answer to the first part of my post: How do you determine the possibility to attack? BTR, please... Come on Kav!?!?! You know perfectly! A character can ALWAYS attack. Being able to attack is the normal condition of every creature, except when it noted differently in the rules So, how I determine the possibility to attack? A creature can always attack unless othewise noticed
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 06:37 AM	Sorry, I totally disagree. "Confused" is a condition that can have DIFFERENT consequences. Every consequence has his special rule that can make you threatening or not. Don't you think you are filling your interpretation with too many "special rules"? But this is not relevant. The central point is exactly what follows... How do you determine the possibility to attack? BTR, please... A character can ALWAYS attack. Being able to attack is the normal condition of every creature, except when it noted differently in the rules So, how I determine the possibility to attack? A creature can always attack unless othewise noticed You are cheating now... there are many and many exceptions to the possibility of attacking, so you can't simply say "always, except when noted differently". The point is WHERE is this noted? Is there a rule for determining the possibility to attack? I'll ask it againg: where it's written "if there aren't conditions that explicitly negates attacks"? Definition of threatened area says only "you can make an attack", so we have to look in another place, but where? You seem confident with the rules, so show it to us.
Leilond 06-28-07, 06:54 AM	You are cheating now... What? Only because I didn't replied as you expected? No my dear, what I said is perfectly legal there are many and many exceptions to the possibility of attacking, so you can't simply say "always, except when noted differently". The point is WHERE is this noted? Is there a rule for determining the possibility to attack? I'll ask it againg: where it's written "if there aren't conditions that explicitly negates attacks"? Where is written that you can see unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can ear unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can walk unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can breath unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can move unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can drink unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can shout unless otherwise noted? Where is written that you can talk unless otherwise noted? Definition of threatened area says only "you can make an attack", so we have to look in another place, but where? You seem confident with the rules, so show it to us. Sorry, I can respond as I prefer. I read the rules. All the manual is based on the fact that you are able to act, attack and move as a general rule You want me to follow your reasoning, but I think your reasoning is flawed at the beginning so I won't follow it Every ACTION described in the manual can be done unless otherwise noted. This is perfectly RAW. This is the rule that always work, ever. If you don't follow this assumption all the manuals is dirty. You cannot talk, because it isn't defined when can you do that You cannot ear, because it isn't defined when can you do that But the most important think on the issue of threatening is that it isn't important the moment, but the general condition. It isn't important to be able to attack "now" but to be able to attack "as a whole". If you don't understand this, we won't never understand You can use all the wording and commas movement out there. I know the rules in the manuals, you must find things somewhere else if you really have some interest in making me change my mind
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 07:06 AM	Definition of threatened area says only "you can make an attack", so we have to look in another place, but where? You seem confident with the rules, so show it to us.Sorry, I can respond as I prefer. I read the rules. All the manual is based on the fact that you are able to act, attack and move as a general rule You want me to follow your reasoning, but I think your reasoning is flawed at the beginning so I won't follow it Every ACTION described in the manual can be done unless otherwise noted. This is perfectly RAW. This is the rule that always work, ever. You say these are Rules As Written. Then you MUST be able to show us where they are written. The only thing i find written is "you can make a melee attack". How do you determine the possibility of making a melee attack?
Leilond 06-28-07, 07:31 AM	You say these are Rules As Written. Then you MUST be able to show us where they are written. The only thing i find written is "you can make a melee attack". How do you determine the possibility of making a melee attack? I thought I already replied You can always attack, unless otherwise noted Definition of "melee attack" With a normal melee weapon you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. So, unless otherwise stated, you can attack To be more deep There are different form of attacks. Each of them has his definition, that I'm sure you can find alone, without me to quote every single form of attack out there If the general condition prevent you to deliver all the form of attack described in the manual you can deliver at least one of them. If you can deliver at least one form of attack, you can define yourself as "able to attack". No matter of the fact that you cannot attack in that moment, because "being able to attack" is a general condition. 1) Something prevent you any form of attack, regardless the moment you apply that "something" or 2) Nothing prevent you any form of attack Being able to attack, doesn't mean "having the opportunity to do so". This means that, if you don't have the opportunity to attack (because you used my standard action to drink a potion and you cannot make AoO because you run out of them), you are still "able to attack".
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 08:36 AM	I thought I already replied You can always attack, unless otherwise noted You didn't reply, neither there, neither now. I'll ask you again: where-is-it-noted-otherwise? 1) Something prevent you any form of attack, regardless the moment you apply that "something" or 2) Nothing prevent you any form of attack Being able to attack, doesn't mean "having the opportunity to do so". This means that, if you don't have the opportunity to attack (because you used my standard action to drink a potion and you cannot make AoO because you run out of them), you are still "able to attack". I read "you can make a melee attack" not "you are able make a melee attack". In order to make a melee attack you MUST "be able to attack". On this we do agree... But you threaten only if "you can make a melee attack". A subtle, but relevant difference. No matter of the fact that you cannot attack in that moment, because "being able to attack" is a general condition. It's written "you can make a melee attack", so the fact that you can make a melee attack or not does MATTER indeed... whether is your turn or not.
Leilond 06-28-07, 09:28 AM	You didn't replied, neither there, neither now. I'll ask you again: where-is-it-noted-otherwise? I read "you can make a melee attack" not "you are able make a melee attack". In order to make a melee attack you MUST "be able to attack". On this we do agree... But you threaten only if "you can make a melee attack". Subtle difference. It's written "you can make a melee attack", so the fact that you can make a melee attack or not does MATTER indeed... whether is your turn or not. You see, that's the problem with the word "can" Threre are two perfectly valid meaning to that word Can you speak english? What does it means? 1) Are you able to speak english? Yes, I can, not matter that you block my mouth 2) Are you able to speak english RIGHT NOW It depends, if you block my mouth I can't So, the difference is in the meaning to that sentence The part "even when..." point us in the right direction, mine (I think) By the way I'm tired of the "teacher vs student" game. If you've a reasoning in mind, please explain it from the beginning to the end, instead of trying to make me use the wrong word to use against me. I can use a wrong word, I will recognize that a word can bring to a misundertsanding or a bad interpretation I will change that word So please, if you have a reasoning in mind, explain it instead of look to every single word written in a language that isn't mine Thanks in advance
Leilond 06-28-07, 09:31 AM	You didn't reply, neither there, neither now. I'll ask you again: where-is-it-noted-otherwise? I read "you can make a melee attack" not "you are able make a melee attack". I simply explained the meaning of a phrase. It is necessary if we want to understand eachother. If I don't do that I can simply quote the rule and say it work as I said. If you prefer I will stop to explain you what I understand and I will start to say only "you misunderstand that sentece, you're wrong" In order to make a melee attack you MUST "be able to attack". On this we do agree... But you threaten only if "you can make a melee attack". A subtle, but relevant difference. It's written "you can make a melee attack", so the fact that you can make a melee attack or not does MATTER indeed... whether is your turn or not.
Leilond 06-28-07, 09:32 AM	You didn't reply, neither there, neither now. I'll ask you again: where-is-it-noted-otherwise? I read "you can make a melee attack" not "you are able make a melee attack". I simply explained the meaning of a phrase. It is necessary if we want to understand eachother. If I don't do that I can simply quote the rule and say it work as I said. If you prefer I will stop to explain you what I understand and I will start to say only "you misunderstand that sentece, you're wrong" In order to make a melee attack you MUST "be able to attack". On this we do agree... But you threaten only if "you can make a melee attack". A subtle, but relevant difference. It's written "you can make a melee attack", so the fact that you can make a melee attack or not does MATTER indeed... whether is your turn or not. You see, that's the problem with the word "can" Threre are two perfectly valid meaning to that word Can you speak english? What does it means? 1) Are you able to speak english? Yes, I can, not matter that you block my mouth 2) Are you able to speak english RIGHT NOW It depends, if you block my mouth I can't So, the difference is in the meaning to that word The part "even when..." point us in the right direction, mine (I think), because it tell us that "it isn't important right now". Without thta part of the sentence, I will surely agree with you By the way I'm tired of the "teacher vs student" game. If you've a reasoning in mind, please explain it from the beginning to the end, instead of trying to make me use the wrong word to use against me. I can use a wrong word, I will recognize that a word can bring to a misundertsanding or a bad interpretation I will change that word So please, if you have a reasoning in mind, explain it instead of look to every single word written in a language that isn't mine Thanks in advance
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 10:03 AM	I dunno to what post must I reply, i've taken the last one... I simply explained the meaning of a phrase. You "explaned the meaning" and called it "RAW"... :rolleyes: it's not a fair game, we cannot base our reasoning on meanings. The words are "you-can-make-a-melee-attack", so the question is, by the RAW: Can-you-make-a-melee-attack? You are blind, and it's your enemy's turn. Turns are not important, so we do not consider them, but the very question remains: Can you make a melee attack? Remember what "Melee Attacks" are by the RAW: Actions made in combat. Standard Actions, in the case of regular attacks. Nonactions, in the case of AoO. Can you make a Standard Action (as Melee Attack)? no. Can you make a Nonaction (as Melee Attack)? no. And so we have: Can you make a melee attack? no. Then you do not threaten. These are strictly RAW. Whitout "meanings" or "rewordings", out of the plain RAW equivalents (i.e. "Standard Actions" - "Attacks"). Let's see if you can do the same... BTW, I remember you again that you didn't answer to my question, that I repeat here again: I thought I already replied You can always attack, unless otherwise noted You didn't reply, neither there, neither now. I'll ask you again: where-is-it-noted-otherwise? It would be kind of you to answer ;)
Marcus Majarra 06-28-07, 01:25 PM	So, "Nonactions" are Actions by the RAW. And since AoO are Nonactions, they're also Actions by the RAW. Incorrect. The segment you quoted describes certain activities as not being actions. Nonactions, by definition, are not an action type. And if you'd like to argue that they follow the list of action types, then by extension, "restricted activity" is also an action type. You should concentrate more on the definition rather than the title. Nonactions are parts of other activities, not actions in an of themselves. The same we can say for Regular Attacks There is no such thing as a regular attack. Making an attack is a standard action only within the context of the attack standard action. Otherwise, the entire sentence would invalidate any other mechanic that involves making attacks, including full attacks, charges, touch-range spells, etc. I don't see any mention to the constance of a threatened area... There's instead a clear mention to the ability to attack (in red). The "even when it's not your action" part is even missing... and following to read in the Part Two of the article we find a new point: Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). What we have here? No threaten? Why? Maybe because you are not able to attack that creature, (though you can try to strike the square in which that creature is...) Here's where the designer made an evident mistake. He indicates that you can attack that creature's space, but that you do not threaten the square. This directly contradicts the PHB, and it loses any worth it might have. Most likely the author intended to declare that you can't execute AoOs against an opponent with total concealment, which is actually consistent with the RAW. Why should? It's not clear that you cannot make standard attacks out of your turn, except for spells or such? No, it's not clear. What you're suggesting is that, because you know exactly what you can do, you're automatically forbidden from doing anything else. That's not how things work. The idea you're implying is only the most likely course of events in that, under the most basic circumstances, a character will not attack out of turn without AoOs. It's not that he cannot do it or is unable to do it; he merely lacks the opportunity to do so. Consider, for example, that a nauiseated character becomes the target of a snake's swiftness spell. Does the character get to make his free attack? The answer is no, because nauseated characters do not have the ability to attack. The fact that the nauseated condition explicitly indicates that the character is unable to make attacks implies that, under normal conditions, a character is able to attack. Snake's swiftness doesn't grant the ability to attack, it merely provides an opportunity to do so. This means that, by default, creatures are always able to attack, and by extension, threaten. Why? I can attack in this timeframe? Yes -> I threaten, No-> I don't threat. It's a loop of incoherence because it eliminates AoOs on its own. Consider the following clauses: A. You are able to attack. B. Your opponent is in one of your threatened squares. C. Your opponent provokes an AoO from you. D. You make an AoO against your opponent. In order for D to happen, you need for C to happen too. In order for C to happen, B must be valid too. And in order for B to work, A also needs to be there. Furthermore, in order to do D, you also need A, B, and C. Are we still on track? Good. Now, if C doesn't happen, D will not happen either. The idea you guys are suggesting is that the default way to attack out of turn is D. But since D doesn't happen without C, then A no longer becomes accessible to you without C happening. But then, for C to happen, you need for A to exist, since C requires B and A. As such, since A is no longer available to you, B also becomes unavailable, as do C and D by extension. This is why the loop terminates itself. In order to make AoOs, you need to have the pre-existing ability to attack. And this ability does not depend on AoOs. More replies at a later time.
Kalvalastir 06-28-07, 02:17 PM	Incorrect. The segment you quoted describes certain activities as not being actions. Nonactions, by definition, are not an action type. May i correct you? "Not an action" is just a name. A name in the list called "Action Types". So Nonactions ARE Actions by the RAW, whatever is the meaning of their name. And if you'd like to argue that they follow the list of action types, then by extension, "restricted activity" is also an action type. "Restricted activity" is an Action Type that includes all Action Types but Full Round Actions. There is no such thing as a regular attack. Making an attack is a standard action only within the context of the attack standard action. And multiple Attacks requires a Full Round Action... :rolleyes:
Leilond 06-28-07, 02:35 PM	All that I will write is MY HONEST OPINION WhenI say "you're wrong" it doesn't mean you are, it only means that I think so You are blind, and it's your enemy's turn. Turns are not important, so we do not consider them, but the very question remains: Can you make a melee attack? Remember what "Melee Attacks" are by the RAW: Actions made in combat. Standard Actions, in the case of regular attacks. Nonactions, in the case of AoO. All this reasoning start from the wrong assumption and has nothing to do with "RAW" because is full of assumption and deduction. The first assumption is "the meaning of the word can". the second is "totally ignoring the second parte of the rule" This is the correct reasoning (IMHO) You threaten each sqare into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action You're flat-footed. Do you threaten? Yes. Turns cannot enter in the issue. If you force them in the reasoning, it is obvious that all seem to work. But the rules say us to not put turns in the discussion AT ALL So the question have to be made without considering the turns at all. You cannot put them in the question. If you do that, you're assuming that in some way, they are related to the threatening issue, and they aren't Can you make a Standard Action (as Melee Attack)? no. Can you make a Nonaction (as Melee Attack)? no. Standard action are a "turn" issue, because they can be done only during your turn, so the concept of "standard action" isn't related to the issue These are strictly RAW. Whitout "meanings" or "rewordings", out of the plain RAW equivalents (i.e. "Standard Actions" - "Attacks"). Let's see if you can do the same... Absolutely not. That is a lot of reasoning, deduction and totally ignore the most important sentence of the rule. This is a reasoning that start from the assumption that "even when it is not your action" is a totally fluffly sentence. Your resoning make the rule working like that sentence isn't there. You can say whatever you want, but you have to give meaning to sentences like everyone do. If you don't do that, the words are only a sequence of simbols without any meaning. The meaning that you give to that sentence is different from mine, and all your reasoning is based on that assumption (wrong I think) where-is-it-noted-otherwise Well, if you prefer I can say "it isn't written anywhere", so "YOU CAN ALWAYS ATTACK". As you know, the word CAN has two possible "meanings". The one I think is to be considered in this situation, is the one I explained in the previous post But you know better than me that when there is a specific rule, that rule has priority on the general rule So, as you know, every rule work unless otherwise noted. It isn't written explicity, but this is how all the rule work. A general rule always work, unless otherwise noted For example, it is noted in the description of the "nausated" rule, that you cannot attack. It isn't noted in the flat-footed description that you cannot attack P.S. On the word can I report an example already reported You arrive in front of a private club door The men at the door say you "You enter only if you can read english" Now, what's the exact meaning Two possible meaning are perfectly legal 1) You have to be able to read english as general ability, because the owner doesn't want illiterates in his club. You've not your glasses with you, and without them you cannot read. But you have the "club card" that demostrate you were accepted in the club the day before, so you are able to read and you can enter 2) You have to be able to read english right now, because there is a big screen in the club and some very importante messages will appear on the screen and it's required that all customers read them. If you forgot your glasses, you've to go home and take them or you cannot enter Both the meaning of the word "can" are perfectly legal. But there is only one that is in the intention of the owner. Only one is the right one. You've to ask the men at the door, and he will clarify you
Marcus Majarra 06-28-07, 05:43 PM	I don't know how to say, but the rules states that attack is a standard action. Actually, this is very much incorrect. While you can make an attack as a standard action (see the attack action), an attack is not a standard action. If this were the case, attacks of opportunity could not exist, nor could the full attack action, the charge action, casting touch-range spells or any sort of scenario that involves making one or more attacks as part of an action. Look at this very simple example: a 17th-level fighter can make 4 attacks with a full attack action. Does this mean he's taking 4 standard actions to do so? By your logic, it would have to be so, because you're stating that an attack is a standard action. Please try to take things into context before making such bold claims. But you actually can attack your opponent. If that's the case, then why am I not attacking my opponent? Because my opponent didn't provoke an attack of opportunity? If that's so, then how can I claim that I can make an attack? Because I have the potential to do so as soon as an opponent provokes? If so, then why don't I have the same kind of potential to attack when a friendly caster targets me with snake's swiftness? Both depend on the actions of others and without these actions, the potential is useless. I can't make an AoO without an opponent provoking, just like I can't cleave without downing an opponent first. I still have the potential and ability to do either. Marcus...........I already did. http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntflankop6.jpg Time to change your mind? I'm talking seriously. Thank you for clarifying. It wasn't clear as to what proof you were referring to. So it's established: stunned characters do not threaten squares because they cannot act. This is not stated anywhere else in the PHB, but it is confirmed by the RotG article that indicates that if you lose the ability to act, you lose the ability to attack. By extension, you lose the ability to threaten when you're unable to act. So basically, whenever something prevents you from either attacking or acting, it also prevents you from threatening. This is simple, to the point, and consistent with the rules (with the mentioned clarifications). Keep in mind, however, that being unable to act was never the focus of the point I'm trying to bring forward. The main question I'm addressing is simple: When are you able to attack? If we can conclusively answer this question, then we can conclusively address the issue of threat. You are right: that's why I don't say "flat footed don't threaten", but "if you are flat footed, and there are no other ways to attack on your opponent's turn, you don't threaten". Thats' quite different, you know. I agree with you on this one. The thing is, how do you know there are no other ways to attack on your opponent's turn? If I can demonstrate there's a way I can attack during my opponent's turn, wouldn't this mean I can threaten? If AoOs were the only way to attack during an opponent's turn, then I would wholeheartedly agree that having the potential to make AoOs would indicate the ability to threaten during your opponent's turn. It's been proven that AoOs are not exclusive in this aspect, which is why I can simply factor them out. Noo. I'm able, but there are no opportunities. I can read, but I have no copies of the Herald Tribune at hand. How is this different from not having the opportunity to receive a snake's swiftness spell? I can read, but I don't have a friend to lend me his copy of the Tribune. The problem here is that the Unconditional Power feat removes the "no action" limit. In fact, without that limit removed, you could'nt manifest the power. So, if you can manifest it, you can attack with it: plain and simple. I don't believe this to be true. If Unconditional Power removed the "No Action" limit, then you could very well do whatever you like with that feat. This power merely grants you the ability to bypass the "No Action" limit for the purpose of manifesting a power, and only manifesting a power. If we must bring this discussion forward while on the matter of "no actions allowed," I remember reading the other day in one of the RotG articles that the ability to threaten was summarized to being able to take at least a standard action to attack. Here's the exact quote: "It's worth noting here that to threaten a space on the battlefield you must be able to make an armed attack into that space (see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity). If you cannot use at least a standard action you cannot make an armed attack into any space." (from RotG: Actions Part Two) This is a simple ruling and actually gives a much clearer definition to what it means to be able to attack (and threaten). Taking into this consideration, my position is that you threaten as long as you're capable of taking at least a standard action to attack, regardless of whether you take this action or not. May i correct you? "Not an action" is just a name. A name in the list called "Action Types". So Nonactions ARE Actions by the RAW, whatever is the meaning of their name. "Restricted activity" is an Action Type that includes all Action Types but Full Round Actions. If that's the case, then how come these categories boast no actual actions in the combat section of the PHB? Conveniently, the PHB combat section boasts standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, and another category of actions that didn't even cut it into the list you're seeming to stick to: miscellaneous actions. The entire point is ridiculous. You're arguing that something that's explicitly described as "not being an action" is actually an action? And multiple Attacks requires a Full Round Action... To be more precise, RAW suggests that a full attack action is needed to make multiple attacks in one round. This notion is inherently false, because of attacks of opportunity. This, of course, suggests that this limitation exists merely within the confines of your own turn. In any case, an attack is not a standard action despite the "making an attack is a standard action" statement. This is an inherent contradiction in the RAW and should be taken in the most likely meaning: that which involves the ability to make an attack as a standard action.
Kalvalastir 06-29-07, 07:08 AM	Turns cannot enter in the issue. If you force them in the reasoning, it is obvious that all seem to work. But the rules say us to not put turns in the discussion AT ALL We do not put them in the discussion of the RULE. But what happens when you apply the rule to a real gameplay situation? You MUST deal with turns, because combat in D&D is based on turns. If you do not deal with turns at all you have a narrative and simultaneous combat. You can't deal with turns in gameplay, and ignore them at the same time. A general rule always work, unless otherwise noted For example, it is noted in the description of the "nausated" rule, that you cannot attack. It isn't noted in the flat-footed description that you cannot attack Yes, it is...read better the rules as written... in the flat-footed description it's written "you cannot make Attacks of Opportunity". Aren't AoO Attacks? Yes, they are Attacks (by the RAW definition) that can be made when certain conditions are met. And in certain gameplay situation, AoO are the only type of Attack you can make. Deal with it. The entire point is ridiculous. You're arguing that something that's explicitly described as "not being an action" is actually an action? Yes, it is. In the same way a Spell delivered by a Melee Touch Attack may not be considered a Melee Weapon, even if you are considered "armed" by the RAW. It may seem illogical, but such spells are not in the "Melee Weapon" list. So they are not Melee Weapons.
Blackstorm_SK 06-29-07, 07:48 AM	Before the first roll he threaten normally After each roll, and until nothing change the status in some way 0-10: you threaten the caster until next turn 11-20: you threaten normally until your next turn 21-50: you don't threaten because you cannot act until your next turn 51-70: you threaten normally 71-100: you threaten the creature you chose as target of your attacks The rules also say "Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes." So if someone attack me the condition change my general condition and it become like the 71-100 This is how it work in my understanding So it count the timeframe. When I'm confused and someone attack me, I'm not in my turn, and I threaten the attacker starting from the timeframe he attck me. Are you aware... not you're aware. When there's a question a verb must be placed before the subject I know. But during a couple of rewriting I've missed it. Are you aware that you're pointing me question that I consider totally irrilevant to the rule. Are you aware that you want me to reply using your understanding to explain mine? No, you don't get the poit. I'm asking something, and I like a reply to it. With your rule. Again, I'm responding you, telling that you're request is totally irrilevant for my understanding. So, whenever is the answer to that question, it won't change the working of the rule The fact that's irrelevant for you doesn't mean that it's the same for me. A creature that cannot act cannot attack. Attacking, as you pointed, is an action, so you cannot attack. This is EXPLICIT A stunned creature with Unconditional power can act (manifesting a power is acting), so a stunned creature with UC can attack, as he can act? Good. I did. My answer is "your question is totally irrilevant to our discussion". So, chose the answer that you prefer, that won't change the working of the rule Are you sure? I can choose any answer, and it don't change the rule? Wow. I win. :D It doesn't? Well, you cannot use that to act while stunned then It's not actually true. Read the feat. The uncoditional power has a special rule, like cleave, that let you do things that you cannot normally do. It shows nothing So, anything it's a special rule? So the rules are made of exception? Cleave let you make AoO when general rules do not let you do it. Sorry, no. To use Cleave, you first must make an attack. So, you can use Cleave only after an AoO. Cleave don't let you make AoOs. I know. But I say "being flat-footed has no influences to your threatening ability" Wow. This is because you're not toally ready, yeah? Lol. From the description of the feat it doesn't look like you say. It simply let you "manifest a psicic power" when stunned. It doesn't say you can move or attack while stunned. But allow you to act. No, it's not clear. What you're suggesting is that, because you know exactly what you can do, you're automatically forbidden from doing anything else. Absolutely not. It's not what I'm saying. The idea you're implying is only the most likely course of events in that, under the most basic circumstances, a character will not attack out of turn without AoOs. It's not that he cannot do it or is unable to do it; he merely lacks the opportunity to do so. Yes, I agree. So? I don't get the point. Consider, for example, that a nauiseated character becomes the target of a snake's swiftness spell. Does the character get to make his free attack? The answer is no, because nauseated characters do not have the ability to attack. The fact that the nauseated condition explicitly indicates that the character is unable to make attacks implies that, under normal conditions, a character is able to attack. Snake's swiftness doesn't grant the ability to attack, it merely provides an opportunity to do so. This means that, by default, creatures are always able to attack, and by extension, threaten. Really, sorry, but I can't see your point... A. You are able to attack. B. Your opponent is in one of your threatened squares. C. Your opponent provokes an AoO from you. D. You make an AoO against your opponent. In order for D to happen, you need for C to happen too. In order for C to happen, B must be valid too. And in order for B to work, A also needs to be there. Furthermore, in order to do D, you also need A, B, and C. Are we still on track? Good. Now, if C doesn't happen, D will not happen either. The idea you guys are suggesting is that the default way to attack out of turn is D. But since D doesn't happen without C, then A no longer becomes accessible to you without C happening. But then, for C to happen, you need for A to exist, since C requires B and A. As such, since A is no longer available to you, B also becomes unavailable, as do C and D by extension. This is why the loop terminates itself. The bolded part is flawed. You can make aoo even if nobody provoke it. Actually, this is very much incorrect. While you can make an attack as a standard action (see the attack action), an attack is not a standard action. I'm sorry: Standard Action Attack (melee) Attack (ranged) Attack (unarmed) You can find it here: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html If this were the case, attacks of opportunity could not exist, AoOs are not listed as combat actions. They're actually defined as free attacks. nor could the full attack action, the charge action, The full attack is a full round action, not a standard action. Same for charge. Check the table. casting touch-range spells Casting a spell is a free, standard, or full round action depending from the casting time. And the touch attack is part of casting the spell. or any sort of scenario that involves making one or more attacks as part of an action. I've widely showed you that your point is a little flawed. Your exaples are totally covered from the rules. Look at this very simple example: a 17th-level fighter can make 4 attacks with a full attack action. Does this mean he's taking 4 standard actions to do so? By your logic, it would have to be so, because you're stating that an attack is a standard action. No, because, BTR, the full round attack is a full round action, not a standard action. Please try to take things into context before making such bold claims. I've did. Rules as written says that an attack is a standard action. Please, do the same before claim that I'm wrong. I've quoted the rules. If that's the case, then why am I not attacking my opponent? Because my opponent didn't provoke an attack of opportunity? If that's so, then how can I claim that I can make an attack? Because I have the potential to do so as soon as an opponent provokes? Hmmm. not exactly. Because if someone provoke it nothing prevent you from make it. I prefer this answer... If so, then why don't I have the same kind of potential to attack when a friendly caster targets me with snake's swiftness? You have more potential, in fact, with SSwiftness spell: it allow you to make an attack, without waiting for an enemy that provokes AoO. It's a larger potential. Or maybe you mean some other thing... well, you don't have the potential to do what SSwiftness spell allow you to do, because you aren't under the spell effect all life long. Both depend on the actions of others and without these actions, the potential is useless. Nope. Yourself said that the ability of making AoO is unchanged if you don't have AoOs left. I can't make an AoO without an opponent provoking, just like I can't cleave without downing an opponent first. I still have the potential and ability to do either. Sorry? Keep in mind, however, that being unable to act was never the focus of the point I'm trying to bring forward. The main question I'm addressing is simple: When are you able to attack? If we can conclusively answer this question, then we can conclusively address the issue of threat. Uhm... the act question is not our issue... or not totally, at least. BtW, what's your reply to this question? I agree with you on this one. The thing is, how do you know there are no other ways to attack on your opponent's turn? If I can demonstrate there's a way I can attack during my opponent's turn, wouldn't this mean I can threaten? If AoOs were the only way to attack during an opponent's turn, then I would wholeheartedly agree that having the potential to make AoOs would indicate the ability to threaten during your opponent's turn. Ok. So you're agree that if your only kind of attack out of your turn is the AoO, and something prevente you from making AoOs, you don't threaten, right? It's been proven that AoOs are not exclusive in this aspect, which is why I can simply factor them out. You don't have the potetial to make a readied action, if you don't ready it. You don't have the potentiale to make a standrd attack if nobody cast SSwiftness on you. The Cleave feat is pointless (you cna use it only after you've make an AoO, so it's not relevant for this porpouse.). Get me other ways in wich you effectively have the potential. How is this different from not having the opportunity to receive a snake's swiftness spell? I can read, but I don't have a friend to lend me his copy of the Tribune. Because you normally don't have the potential to make an attack as per spell. I don't believe this to be true. If Unconditional Power removed the "No Action" limit, then you could very well do whatever you like with that feat. This power merely grants you the ability to bypass the "No Action" limit for the purpose of manifesting a power, and only manifesting a power. Anyway it allow you to act. If we must bring this discussion forward while on the matter of "no actions allowed," I remember reading the other day in one of the RotG articles that the ability to threaten was summarized to being able to take at least a standard action to attack. Here's the exact quote: "It's worth noting here that to threaten a space on the battlefield you must be able to make an armed attack into that space (see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity). If you cannot use at least a standard action you cannot make an armed attack into any space." (from RotG: Actions Part Two) This is a simple ruling and actually gives a much clearer definition to what it means to be able to attack (and threaten). Taking into this consideration, my position is that you threaten as long as you're capable of taking at least a standard action to attack, regardless of whether you take this action or not. So you can never make AoOs, cause when someone provokes an AoO, you cannot use a standard action. If that's the case, then how come these categories boast no actual actions in the combat section of the PHB? Conveniently, the PHB combat section boasts standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, and another category of actions that didn't even cut it into the list you're seeming to stick to: miscellaneous actions. You forget the non actions.And there are no thing such miscellaneous actions. There are Action Typs Varies, to be exact. The entire point is ridiculous. You're arguing that something that's explicitly described as "not being an action" is actually an action? From the same link that I've used above: No Action Delay 5-foot step Please, note that the table is called Actions in Combat So, yes, a non action is an action. To be more precise, RAW suggests that a full attack action is needed to make multiple attacks in one round. This notion is inherently false, because of attacks of opportunity. Actually the RAW suggest that a full attack is needed to make multiple attacks due to an high BaB. This, of course, suggests that this limitation exists merely within the confines of your own turn. Of course... I don't know ways to make a full round action out of my turn. In any case, an attack is not a standard action despite the "making an attack is a standard action" statement. The SRD+errata doesn't say that. Or PHB+errata, for what it matter. An attack is a standard action, and a full round attack is a full round action. This is an inherent contradiction in the RAW and should be taken in the most likely meaning: that which involves the ability to make an attack as a standard action. You know, your point is flawed. The article says tht you threaten if you can use at least a standard action.
Kalvalastir 06-29-07, 10:00 AM	So the timeframe counts. When I'm confused and someone attack me, I'm not in my turn, and I threaten the attacker starting from the timeframe he's attacking me. Exaclty what I wanted to show... ;) for Leilond the timeframe is sometimes important, and sometimes is not... :rolleyes: Is this not enough to change your mind? Keep in mind, however, that being unable to act was never the focus of the point I'm trying to bring forward. The main question I'm addressing is simple: When are you able to attack? If we can conclusively answer this question, then we can conclusively address the issue of threat. Right point, but wrong question. The rule says "you can make a melee attack", so the right question by the RAW is "When can you make a melee attack?" "Being able" to attack or not, is not an issue by the RAW.
thondar 06-30-07, 12:44 PM	A stunned creature with Unconditional power can act (manifesting a power is acting), so a stunned creature with UC can attack, as he can act? It allow physical actions? It say "Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers." An attack don't seem to apply. So, anything it's a special rule? So the rules are made of exception? Do you think it's normal act while stunned? Wow. This is because you're not toally ready, yeah? Lol. being flat-footed don't say that you don't threat. The bolded part is flawed. You can make aoo even if nobody provoke it. Why? then how can I claim that I can make an attack? Because I have the potential to do so as soon as an opponent provokes? Hmmm. not exactly. Because if someone provoke it nothing prevent you from make it. I prefer this answer... So you threat asleep? Because if you awake nothing prevent you from attack? well, you don't have the potential to do what SSwiftness spell allow you to do, because you aren't under the spell effect all life long. It's the same with unconditional power In any case, an attack is not a standard action despite the "making an attack is a standard action" statement. The SRD+errata doesn't say that. Or PHB+errata, for what it matter. An attack is a standard action, and a full round attack is a full round action. Are you sure? Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable o neutralize an opponent for Leilond the timeframe is sometimes important, and sometimes is not... It's important except when rules say otherwise.
Blackstorm_SK 06-30-07, 04:39 PM	It allow physical actions? It say "Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers." An attack don't seem to apply. But you're said that a character threaten if he can act. Do you think it's normal act while stunned? Obviously no. But I think you don't get the point. being flat-footed don't say that you don't threat. Neither the sleeping status. You can make aoo even if nobody provoke it. Why? Don't play dumb. So you threat asleep? Because if you awake nothing prevent you from attack? Explain better, please. well, you don't have the potential to do what SSwiftness spell allow you to do, because you aren't under the spell effect all life long. It's the same with unconditional power I wonder how you don't getting the point every time. . An attack is a standard action, and a full round attack is a full round action. Are you sure? Originally Posted by PHB - Glossary Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable o neutralize an opponent Yeah. So? A standard attack is still a standard action, and a full round attack is still a full round action. The glossary doesn't contraddict me. Play with phb, young boy: find the table to wich I refer. It's important except when rules say otherwise. Yeah, sure. You don't get the point as usual. Try again.
Marcus Majarra 06-30-07, 06:25 PM	Right point, but wrong question. The rule says "you can make a melee attack", so the right question by the RAW is "When can you make a melee attack?" That is very much the question at hand. My answer to this question is simple too: You can make a melee attack as long as you have the potential to make a melee attack. There's a reason why I'm talking about potential. Let's say you're acting on your turn, and you take a double move. During your turn, you have the potential to make a melee attack (assuming you're armed and within reach of an opponent), but since you're not actually attacking, you wouldn't threaten any squares if the idea that "you can make a melee attack" implied that you're actually making a melee attack. This is also consistent with the ability to attack when you're not acting. At a certain point during a round of combat, you will not be making melee attacks and you will have no actions left that allow you to make melee attacks. Does this mean that you "can't make melee attacks" at these moments? Obviously not. Attacks of opportunity, for example, can never occur if you can't make a melee attack. In order for an opponent to provoke AoOs from you, it needs to be in a threatened square. If you're threatening a square, by extension, "you can make a melee attack into it." Basically, there's evidence that the idea that "you can make a melee attack" corresponds to the potential to make a melee attack. Now, what defines this potential? The RAW aren't very clear on this issue. It's obvious that you have this potential when you're acting and are capable of carrying out an action that involves an attack, if you're armed at that time. What about when you're not acting? How do you know you have the potential to attack? It's obvious that if you have attacks of opportunity left, you're going to have the potential to attack. This is implied by the very idea that an opponent needs to be in a threatened square for you to ever execute an AoO against that opponent. Now, are AoOs exclusive in this aspect? No, they're not the only way to attack when you're not acting. The aforementioned snake's swiftness spell is a prime example of attacking when it's not your turn to act. Even when a character runs out of AoOs, he still gets to attack by virtue of the spell. In any case, I very much doubt the argument has to deal with the specific instances in which you can make melee attacks when you're not acting. The reason behind this is the way threatened squares are resolved: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action." (PHB137) The "even when it's not your action" clause implies that if you can make a melee attack when it's your action, you also threaten when it's not your action. Actual opportunities to attack are irrelevant, as you threaten squares even when it's not your action. Thus, my position is that you threaten squares during your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during your turn, and that you threaten squares outside your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during the following turn (in order to accommodate for conditions that might prevent you from attacking). In a related problem, I don't see an issue with threat as is. It's flanking that's a bit flawed, as it's the only threat-dependent feature that never gets affected (unlike AoOs, which are often unavailable in many conditions).
Blackstorm_SK 06-30-07, 08:40 PM	You can make a melee attack as long as you have the potential to make a melee attack. Uhm... ok, let's go. There's a reason why I'm talking about potential. Let's say you're acting on your turn, and you take a double move. During your turn, you have the potential to make a melee attack (assuming you're armed and within reach of an opponent), but since you're not actually attacking, you wouldn't threaten any squares if the idea that "you can make a melee attack" implied that you're actually making a melee attack. Agree. Attacks of opportunity, for example, can never occur if you can't make a melee attack. Actually an AoO is a melee attack. If you can't make a melle attack, you obviously can't make a melee attack. If you refer to standard attacks, you can't say it. Otherwise, I can say that if you can't make a standard attack, you can't make a standard attack, that's totally true :D Back to serious mood, really, I'm not understanding what you mean. In order for an opponent to provoke AoOs from you, it needs to be in a threatened square. If you're threatening a square, by extension, "you can make a melee attack into it." Uhm, this sounds like the apparent loop of wich Egres talked about... Don't you think? You're saying that to be able to make AoOs, the opponente must be in a threatened square, so you're saying that to attack a square, the squaere must be threatened. Then you say that in a threatened square, you can make a melee attack. I don't think I've misread this sentence... Now, what defines this potential? The RAW aren't very clear on this issue. It's obvious that you have this potential when you're acting and are capable of carrying out an action that involves an attack, if you're armed at that time. So, the timeframe in wich you are counts, right? What about when you're not acting? How do you know you have the potential to attack? It's obvious that if you have attacks of opportunity left, you're going to have the potential to attack. Right. As for standard/full round attack. Now, are AoOs exclusive in this aspect? No, they're not the only way to attack when you're not acting. Right, but you don't need to "activate" an AoO, nor readying one. The aforementioned snake's swiftness spell is a prime example of attacking when it's not your turn to act. Even when a character runs out of AoOs, he still gets to attack by virtue of the spell. Excuse me, you're saying that if the wiz of the group have SSwiftness ready to cast, but he don't cast it, and I'm prevented from make AoOs, I threaten because the wiz has the potential to give me an attack with the spell? It's slightly ridicolous, don't you think? AoOs is not the only way to attack, right, but it is, if nobody cast the spell or if I readying an action. The fact that your party has the SSwiftness spell available, doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, cast it on you. In any case, I very much doubt the argument has to deal with the specific instances in which you can make melee attacks when you're not acting. Uh? The reason behind this is the way threatened squares are resolved: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action." (PHB137) The "even when it's not your action" clause implies that if you can make a melee attack when it's your action, you also threaten when it's not your action. Hmmm... Egres have yet showed you that with this reasoning you going to conclude that a stunned charachter threaten. Actual opportunities to attack are irrelevant, as you threaten squares even when it's not your action. So the timeframe does not count? Hmmmm... reflect on this, Marcus: you've stated that you must be armed in a certain timeframe to have the potential to make an attack (and thus, for your definition, to threaten). Now you say that if you threante on your turn, then you threaten even out of your turn because the timeframe does not count to state a threaten. So, by your reasoning, the timeframe count for determinate the trheaten, and the timeframe does not count for determinate the threaten. It seems really an (A and notA) statement. Thus, my position is that you threaten squares during your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during your turn, Right. and that you threaten squares outside your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during the following turn (in order to accommodate for conditions that might prevent you from attacking). Come on, Marcus. Are you sure that you want to sustain this? Are you saying that you threaten out of your turn if in the following turn you can make an attack? How can you know if in the next turn you'll be able to attack? What if someone paralizes you, or kill you, or stun you? In the next turn you cannot make attack, then in the preceding out of your turn timeframe you wasn't a threat... What is this, a time machine? In a related problem, I don't see an issue with threat as is. It's flanking that's a bit flawed, as it's the only threat-dependent feature that never gets affected (unlike AoOs, which are often unavailable in many conditions). What do you mean with "never gets affected"? If you don't threat you don't flank. If you don't flank, your rogue cannot make a sneak attack. If your rogue cannot make a sneak attack, he's uneffective. If he's uneffective your enemy gets more round of actions. If your enemy gets more round of actions, he can do much more things. If he can do much more thing, your party has much more difficulties. If your party ave much more difficulties someone get letally hurted. If someone get letally hurted... Get a new sheet :D [Sorry, a little joke... :P But really, what do you mean with "never gets affected"?]
Kalvalastir 07-01-07, 02:20 PM	That is very much the question at hand. My answer to this question is simple too: You can make a melee attack as long as you have the potential to make a melee attack. Ok... this is your answer. Let's see if you can demonstrate it by the RAW. There's a reason why I'm talking about potential. Let's say you're acting on your turn, and you take a double move. During your turn, you have the potential to make a melee attack (assuming you're armed and within reach of an opponent), but since you're not actually attacking, you wouldn't threaten any squares if the idea that "you can make a melee attack" implied that you're actually making a melee attack. This is also consistent with the ability to attack when you're not acting. At a certain point during a round of combat, you will not be making melee attacks and you will have no actions left that allow you to make melee attacks. Does this mean that you "can't make melee attacks" at these moments? Obviously not. Attacks of opportunity, for example, can never occur if you can't make a melee attack. In order for an opponent to provoke AoOs from you, it needs to be in a threatened square. If you're threatening a square, by extension, "you can make a melee attack into it." Basically, there's evidence that the idea that "you can make a melee attack" corresponds to the potential to make a melee attack. Where's the evidence? You showed no one. I asked for rules, you gave me just an opinion ;) I see no evidence by the RAW... the word "potential" (or the word "be able to" or other words that imply a general ability to attack) do not appear in the rules. Nowhere. No matter how hard you'll search, there's no evidence at all. The only possible evidence I see is the verb "can" (that is ambiguous, we do agree on this) and the verb "make", that is clearly a practical verb. BTW, a rule is made to be applied. So to apply a rule to a specific situation we have to answer to the question: Can you make a melee attack? No matter if it's your action or not, this question needs an answer. The combat has started but you have yet to act so you are Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. He asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer?
thondar 07-01-07, 06:13 PM	But you're said that a character threaten if he can act. I don’t said that. I (and the rule too) said that a character don’t threaten if he can’t act. You don’t answered to my question. Unconditional power allow physical actions? But I think you don't get the point. Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply If you think that I don’t get the point then make the point clear. being flat-footed don't say that you don't threat. Neither the sleeping status. Ridiculous. What are you saying? 1) that a sleeping character threat? 2) that any unruled condition block threat? 3) Another wordplay? You can make aoo even if nobody provoke it. Why? Don't play dumb. I’m not like you: It’s a serious question. Why the provocation don’t matter, while to be out of your turn do? Where the rules say that provocation don’t matter? AoO: un single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes AoO You need reach and provocation. How do you (and the rules) definite the potential to attack? I wonder how you don't getting the point every time. I repeat Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply If you think that I don’t get the point then make the point clear. An attack is a standard action, and a full round attack is a full round action. Are you sure? Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable o neutralize an opponentYeah. So? A standard attack is still a standard action, and a full round attack is still a full round action. The glossary doesn't contraddict me. Play with phb, young boy: find the table to wich I refer. You cut. I paste. In any case, an attack is not a standard action despite the "making an attack is a standard action" statement. The SRD+errata doesn't say that. Or PHB+errata, for what it matter. So yes. The PHB contradict you. Yeah, sure. You don't get the point as usual. Try again. I repeat Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply If you think that I don’t get the point then make the point clear. Actually an AoO is a melee attack. No. AoO: un single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes AoO It’s a extra melee attack that you can make only in certain circumstance. you don't need to "activate" an AoO, nor readying one but it need provocation (and reach) The fact that your party has the SSwiftness spell available, doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, cast it on you. The fact that AoOs aren't negate doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, provoke it. It seems really an (A and notA) statement. and this is another wordplay The combat has started but you have yet to act so you are Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. He asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer? The combat has started and you aren’t Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. Your foe don’t provoke AoO. Your friend asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer?
Blackstorm_SK 07-01-07, 08:58 PM	You don’t answered to my question. Unconditional power allow physical actions? No. so? Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply Oh, but I know how to reply. But you know, if you give me an answer that has nothing to do with what I'm asking, I must conclude that you don't get the point. But for your pleasure, let's try again: So, anything it's a special rule? So the rules are made of exception? Answer to this. This is the point. Ridiculous. What are you saying? 1) that a sleeping character threat? 2) that any unruled condition block threat? 3) Another wordplay? 1)no. never said. 2)no. never said. 3)cease to claim I'm doing wordplay if you don't know how to reply. I’m not like you: It’s a serious question. Why the provocation don’t matter, while to be out of your turn do? Where the rules say that provocation don’t matter? Never said that. what I mean with "can" is that you're able to make AoOs. I suppose it's my fault, I wasn't very clear. I repeat Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply If you think that I don’t get the point then make the point clear. God. Some people never learn. Ok, I'll explain the point: a spell or a readied action doesn't allow you to threaten only because someone can cast the spell on you in a certain moment, or only because you can ready an action in a non specified moment. So, they're not a granted "allow threat" stuff. They're not enough, alone, to give you the threat. You need to ready an action/have the spell casted on you to get the benefit of threat for these stuff. Get it? So yes. The PHB contradict you. Lol. you're a funny boy. Open your PHB, check the table "actions in combat" in the index page. The read it. It says that an attack is a standard action and the full round attack is a full round action. Btw, your precious glossary says: Originally Posted by PHB - glossary Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable o neutralize an opponent But it don't specifies if those "any of numerous actions" are standard actions, full round actions, or wathever. So, sorry, but the glossary doesn't contraddict me. And before reply, check the table. I repeat Cease to say that I don’t get the point when you don’t know how reply If you think that I don’t get the point then make the point clear. Young boy, if you don't get the point, you don't get the point. Deal with it. Anyway, the point is that you, for two situation that needs the same type of consideration, one time you says timeframe count, and the other time you says timeframe doesn't count. It's not a matter of "rules says otherwise", is a matter that you use both in two situation that needs the same rule. No. It’s a extra melee attack that you can make only in certain circumstance. Yeah. You quote: AoO: un single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes AoO So an AoO is a melee attack. As I said. This show how you didn't get the point, even in this reply. I've never said that an AoO isn't an extra attack, nor said that you need certain circumstance. I've said that it's a melee attack. And you've confirmed this. You get the point? The point is not "extra", is not "under certain conditions", is not "single". Is "melee attack". but it need provocation (and reach) But you don't need to "activate" it like a spell or a readied action. The fact that AoOs aren't negate doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, provoke it. If nothing prevent you from making an AoO, you can always make it if the circumstances allow it. As for the standard/full round attacks: to attack someone, you need to have him in reach. Otherwise: "The fact that your attacks aren't negate doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone, can in the future, be in reach" And this is clearly false. And an AoO is an attack. But, you, as usual don... Uhm, no. You know it, yet. and this is another wordplay No. Don't interfere with something that Marcus has said and to wich I've replied. Claim a worplay only because you don't know how to reply is not a great idea, you know. The combat has started and you aren’t Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. Your foe don’t provoke AoO. Your friend asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer? You don't have answered to the similar question posed by Kal. Reply to it. Then I answer to this question. And I can note that you didn't give me one or two explanations that I've asked. Big deal for you, I know.
Marcus Majarra 07-02-07, 01:34 AM	Actually an AoO is a melee attack. If you can't make a melle attack, you obviously can't make a melee attack. If you refer to standard attacks, you can't say it. Otherwise, I can say that if you can't make a standard attack, you can't make a standard attack, that's totally true Back to serious mood, really, I'm not understanding what you mean. What I meant here was that being able to make AoOs implicitly requires that you be able to make melee attacks. It's like saying that being able to cast magic missile requires that you be able to cast 1st-level Sor/Wiz spells (generally speaking). Thus, in order to make AoOs, you must be able to make melee attacks. Uhm, this sounds like the apparent loop of wich Egres talked about... Don't you think? You're saying that to be able to make AoOs, the opponente must be in a threatened square, so you're saying that to attack a square, the squaere must be threatened. Then you say that in a threatened square, you can make a melee attack. I don't think I've misread this sentence... You've not misread it. The only thing wrong is what Egres perceives as a loop. Right, but you don't need to "activate" an AoO, nor readying one. Just like you don't have to "activate" or ready the use of the benefits from a snake's swiftness spell. AoOs are merely attacks that are generated by another's actions. Excuse me, you're saying that if the wiz of the group have SSwiftness ready to cast, but he don't cast it, and I'm prevented from make AoOs, I threaten because the wiz has the potential to give me an attack with the spell? It's slightly ridicolous, don't you think? AoOs is not the only way to attack, right, but it is, if nobody cast the spell or if I readying an action. The fact that your party has the SSwiftness spell available, doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, cast it on you. You're misunderstanding: "you're saying that if the wiz of the group have SSwiftness ready to cast, but he don't cast it, and I'm prevented from make AoOs, I threaten because the wiz has the potential to give me an attack with the spell?" No, you threaten because you can still make melee attacks into that square. Let's say you forget snake's swiftness at all and that you can still make AoOs. If your opponent can perform an action that will provoke an AoO from you, but doesn't, do you still threaten? The entire idea is that AoOs require a pre-existing ability to attack (just like casting magic missile requires a pre-existing ability to cast spells). Not being able to perform AoOs is like saying that a spellcaster cannot cast certain spells. Does this mean that the spellcaster can't cast spells? Of course not. "AoOs is not the only way to attack, right, but it is, if nobody cast the spell or if I readying an action. The fact that your party has the SSwiftness spell available, doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, cast it on you." Except that the benefit of snake's swiftness is not to threaten squares. It's an opportunity for you to attack, no different from an opponent taking an action that provokes an AoO from you. Hmmmm... reflect on this, Marcus: you've stated that you must be armed in a certain timeframe to have the potential to make an attack (and thus, for your definition, to threaten). Now you say that if you threante on your turn, then you threaten even out of your turn because the timeframe does not count to state a threaten. [...] Come on, Marcus. Are you sure that you want to sustain this? Are you saying that you threaten out of your turn if in the following turn you can make an attack? How can you know if in the next turn you'll be able to attack? What if someone paralizes you, or kill you, or stun you? In the next turn you cannot make attack, then in the preceding out of your turn timeframe you wasn't a threat... What is this, a time machine? You're misunderstanding the idea here. It's never about a timeframe; it's always about the now and what's possible to you. The only time where you need to consider a timeframe is when you want to establish a window during which you can't attack (such as during the round you are stunned). I'll admit, however, that my more recent reflections have led me to believe that the entire point of threat can be simplified to your ability to attack during your current turn, if it's your action, or your ability to attack during your next turn, if it's not your action: 1) If it's your turn, it's obvious you threaten if you can take any sort of action that involves an armed melee attack. 2) If it's not your turn, it's obvious that you do not threaten if something prevents you from taking any sort of action that involves an armed melee attack during your next turn. For example, if you become stunned after your turn, you'll remain stunned for an entire round, including during your next turn. The only clouded issue here is what really allows a creature to threaten when it's not acting. I still see no argument from your side of the discussion that addresses this issue coherently. To answer the question: "How can you know if in the next turn you'll be able to attack?" Generally speaking, you know that you're going to be able to make a melee attack on your next turn as long as you're still armed, within reach of your opponent, and in a condition that allows you to attack. If you become paralyzed for 1 round at some point after your turn, you're not going to be able to attack during your next turn. This view is based mostly on the idea that anything that will inhibit your ability to attack will last a fixed number of rounds. If you want a more general solution, consider the following: If the PHB states that you threaten, even if it's not your action, wouldn't it be simple to determine you ability to threaten when you're not acting as if you had to determine threat as if you were acting? In other words, you determine threat outside your actions by finding out if you would threaten if you were to act now. But really, what do you mean with "never gets affected"? I meant that flanking is one of the few threat-dependent mechanics that isn't affected by outside factors (except for Improved Uncanny Dodge, from a core POV). AoOs also depend on threatened squares, and yet there's lots of things preventing you from taking AoOs. Where's the evidence? You showed no one. I asked for rules, you gave me just an opinion I see no evidence by the RAW... the word "potential" (or the word "be able to" or other words that imply a general ability to attack) do not appear in the rules. Nowhere. No matter how hard you'll search, there's no evidence at all. The only possible evidence I see is the verb "can" (that is ambiguous, we do agree on this) and the verb "make", that is clearly a practical verb. BTW, a rule is made to be applied. So to apply a rule to a specific situation we have to answer to the question: Can you make a melee attack? No matter if it's your action or not, this question needs an answer. The combat has started but you have yet to act so you are Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. He asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer? I will answer yes. You're asking for evidence that isn't written, not because it doesn't exist, but because it has no reason to be written. Normally, you can make a melee attack. That fact that certain conditions stipulate that you can't attack while in these conditions illustrates an exception to the general rule. Why would it be necessary to specify that nauseated characters can't make attacks if they wouldn't normally be able to do so? Here's another brainteaser for you. General case scenario: you're not on your turn an no opponent provokes AoOs from you. Can you prove that you can attack? The simplest and most coherent way to establish threat at any given point in time is to determine whether or not you could make melee attacks if it was your action at that given point in time.
Leilond 07-02-07, 03:43 AM	All that I write is "my honest opinion" Where's the evidence? You showed no one. I asked for rules, you gave me just an opinion And you showed no one that demostrate I'm wrong, only your reasoning and deductions I see no evidence by the RAW... the word "potential" (or the word "be able to" or other words that imply a general ability to attack) do not appear in the rules. Nowhere. No matter how hard you'll search, there's no evidence at all. The only possible evidence I see is the verb "can" (that is ambiguous, we do agree on this) and the verb "make", that is clearly a practical verb. You forgot the verb "threaten" and the word "even" (and a bounch of other words that give the meaning to the sentence). I remember you that in my understanding the word "even" is referred to the word "threaten" BTW, a rule is made to be applied. So to apply a rule to a specific situation we have to answer to the question: Can you make a melee attack? It depend on the meaning that you give to the word "can". As I showed you in the previous post the two possible and perfectly legal understanding of that word in the english language. You've to specify wich type of "can" you're talkinga about If you intend "can" as usually used (Can you speak english?) the answer is "yes, I can always attack, except when otherwise noted" No matter if it's your action or not, this question needs an answer. Exactly. If it doesn't matter if it's not your action, you can always attack The combat has started but you have yet to act so you are Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. He asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer? Reply With Quote Yes, I can. To better understand this answer, re-read the discussion on the word "can" on my previous posts You can always attack, unless otherwise written You can always talk, unless otherwise written You can always breath, unless otherwise written You can always move, unless otherwise written You can always cast a spell, unless otherwise written If you cannot take AoO you can still attack as general ability. Only one form of attack is impossible, not the general ability to attack QUESTION FOR YOU A question for you Kav 1) How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? 2) If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you attack? I know you already answered, but your answer was mixed up with lots of other issues, and it was difficult for me to divide RAW, deduction and questions So, please, divide your answer from your questions, so that we can discuss, if it's not a problem Thanks
Kalvalastir 07-02-07, 03:49 AM	BTW, a rule is made to be applied. So to apply a rule to a specific situation we have to answer to the question: Can you make a melee attack? No matter if it's your action or not, this question needs an answer. The combat has started but you have yet to act so you are Flat Footed. Is your friend's Rogue action and he needs to know if you can provide flanking bonus or not... so he needs to know if you threaten the square into which the foe is. He asks you then the fatidical question... Can you make a melee attack? What will you answer?I will answer yes. And you will be wrong. Remember what "attacks" are by the RAW... for every attack, there's an Action type needed. So if you cannot make standard actions, nor full round actions, you haven't prepared an action and AoO are negated, you can't attack. I don't care if it's my turn or not, I care if I can make actions, in order to attack. And I just can't. You're asking for evidence that isn't written, not because it doesn't exist, but because it has no reason to be written. The fact that isn't written is a your problem, not mine ;) Here's another brainteaser for you. General case scenario: you're not on your turn an no opponent provokes AoOs from you. Can you prove that you can attack? Let's look at the RAW for the "attack" definition and which actions are required. Can I make standard actions? no. Can I make full round actions? no. Can I make nonactions (in order to deliver an Attack of Opportunity)? yes. So I can make a melee attack.
Leilond 07-02-07, 04:04 AM	And you will be wrong. No, I won't Remember what "attacks" are by the RAW... for every attack, there's an Action type needed. So if you cannot make standard actions, nor full round actions, you haven't prepared an action and AoO are negated, you can't attack. Nothing in the rules say that a flat-footed createure cannot act The fact that I didn't do nothing yet doesn't mean I cannot do nothing You can always act, unless otherwise noted I don't care if it's my turn or not, I care if I can make actions, in order to attack. And I just can't. "Even when it is not your action" tell us you're wrong. You don't need to take an action, only being in a condition that do not explicity forbit you to do so If being flat-footed means "you cannot act" why in the surprise round the wrote that if you're surprised you are flat-footed AND you cannot act? If the rules was like you said (flat-footed characters cannot act), there wasn't any need to specify that you cannot act There isn't any rule that say "a flat-footed character cannot act", nor "a flat-footed character cannot attack". Only deductions and assumption (pheraps logical and belivable), but no rules They wrote "a flat-footed character cannot make AoO" instead of writing "a flat-footed cannot attack" Let's look at the RAW for the "attack" definition and which actions are required. Can I make standard actions? no. Can I make full round actions? no. Can I make nonactions (in order to deliver an Attack of Opportunity)? yes. But the rules say us to ignore the fact that it isn't your turn, thus to the question Can I make standard actions? The answer is YES, because the condition do not prevent this, and you can always make a standard action unless otherwise noted QUESTION FOR YOU A question for you Kav 1) How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? 2) If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you attack? Can I make standard actions? no. Can I make full round actions? no. Can I make nonactions (in order to deliver an Attack of Opportunity)? no. (In my understanding of the rules "opponent turn" isn't an issue, so the answer to the first question is "yes", as already said, but I would like to talk about YOUR understanding of the rule) I know you already answered, but your answer was mixed up with lots of other issues, and it was difficult for me to divide RAW, deduction and questions So, please, divide your answer from your questions, so that we can discuss, if it's not a problem Thanks
Blackstorm_SK 07-02-07, 07:26 AM	What I meant here was that being able to make AoOs implicitly requires that you be able to make melee attacks. It's like saying that being able to cast magic missile requires that you be able to cast 1st-level Sor/Wiz spells (generally speaking). Thus, in order to make AoOs, you must be able to make melee attacks. A rogue isn't able to cast at all, but he can cast a spell from a scroll. A cleric isn't able to cast magic missile, but if he has Anyspell he can... Obviously, as long an AoO is a melee attack, you must be able to do it, for doing it. You've not misread it. The only thing wrong is what Egres perceives as a loop. Ehm... I can't see the difference... Can you show me? Just like you don't have to "activate" or ready the use of the benefits from a snake's swiftness spell. AoOs are merely attacks that are generated by another's actions. a SSwiftness must be casted to give some benefit: you can cast it yourself, or someone can cast it to you, but it needs "activation", that is the merely fact of having this spell available, doesn't mean that it give me advantage. Instead the merely fact of are able to make AoOs give me the advantage of threat. For readied actions, well, you need to ready an action to get the benefit... you don't need to ready an AoO... You're misunderstanding: "you're saying that if the wiz of the group have SSwiftness ready to cast, but he don't cast it, and I'm prevented from make AoOs, I threaten because the wiz has the potential to give me an attack with the spell?" No, you threaten because you can still make melee attacks into that square. Let's say you forget snake's swiftness at all and that you can still make AoOs. If your opponent can perform an action that will provoke an AoO from you, but doesn't, do you still threaten? I've bolded this part. Actually an AoO is a melee attack. So I answer yes, because you're able to make an attack, in this case an AoO. I don't see the problem... The entire idea is that AoOs require a pre-existing ability to attack (just like casting magic missile requires a pre-existing ability to cast spells). As I've said, an AoO is a melee attack, so for itself it allow you to make an attack... Not being able to perform AoOs is like saying that a spellcaster cannot cast certain spells. Does this mean that the spellcaster can't cast spells? Of course not. Agree. "AoOs is not the only way to attack, right, but it is, if nobody cast the spell or if I readying an action. The fact that your party has the SSwiftness spell available, doesn't mean that you benefice from it only because someone can, in the future, cast it on you." Except that the benefit of snake's swiftness is not to threaten squares. It's an opportunity for you to attack, no different from an opponent taking an action that provokes an AoO from you. You threaten the squares in wich you can make a melee attack. A SSwiftness spell give you the ability to attack, and thus threaten (a little question: if the SSwiftness gives you the ability to make a standard attack out of your turn, doesn't mean this that normally you aren't able to make a standard attack out of your turn?). Instead an opponent that provokes an AoO, don't give you the ability to attack (if you run out of AoO, the mere fact that an opponent provoke an AoO doesn't give you the ability of make more AoOs). You're misunderstanding the idea here. It's never about a timeframe; it's always about the now and what's possible to you. The only time where you need to consider a timeframe is when you want to establish a window during which you can't attack (such as during the round you are stunned). Excuse, but if you count the timeframe for estabilishing when you can't attack, it means that the timeframe count. Can I attack? Not in this timeframe. So it counts. It cannot counts for a "cannot" without counting even for a "not cannot" (yes, that is "can")... It wouldn't make sense. 1) If it's your turn, it's obvious you threaten if you can take any sort of action that involves an armed melee attack. Right... we're agree on this. 2) If it's not your turn, it's obvious that you do not threaten if something prevents you from taking any sort of action that involves an armed melee attack during your next turn. For example, if you become stunned after your turn, you'll remain stunned for an entire round, including during your next turn. But what if I become paralized out of my turn, then the wiz dispel paralisys? Ther's a timeframe in wich I cannot make attacks... The only clouded issue here is what really allows a creature to threaten when it's not acting. I still see no argument from your side of the discussion that addresses this issue coherently. Well. You threaten a square out of your turn if you can in someways make a melee attack in that square, in the timeframe in wich you are: you can't use the "if I were in my turn" because actually it isn't your turn, so you cannot do the same thing you do when it's your turn. This means that you must consider the timeframe in wich you are, not that in wich you will be, or in wich you was be. It's present. This is due to the fact that out of your turn, you cannot make the same things that you can make when it's your turn. To answer the question: "How can you know if in the next turn you'll be able to attack?" Generally speaking, you know that you're going to be able to make a melee attack on your next turn as long as you're still armed, within reach of your opponent, and in a condition that allows you to attack. If you become paralyzed for 1 round at some point after your turn, you're not going to be able to attack during your next turn. You cannot say it: what if in my turn I die? Let's say a black lotus venom. When it's my turn one minute is going so I must make my second save. Let's say I fail, and I die for con damage. This happen at the start of my turn. In the preceding out of my turn phase, how can you say that you can or cannot attack in your next turn? In your "next turn" you're dead... If the PHB states that you threaten, even if it's not your action, Uhm... it doesn't state exactly this... wouldn't it be simple to determine you ability to threaten when you're not acting as if you had to determine threat as if you were acting? In other words, you determine threat outside your actions by finding out if you would threaten if you were to act now. If I'm acting now, I can do things that I cannot do when I'm not acting. A simple issue: Harm spell. If I'm unarmed (w/o IUS), and in my turn I cast quickened Harm, I get threat, for that spell. If it's not my turn, and I consider as if it's my turn, it means that, by your reasoning, I've threat, because if were my turn, I eventually can cast quickened Harm, that gives me threat. If you dont like quck Harm, try with quick Weapon of the Deity (players guide of faerun) I meant that flanking is one of the few threat-dependent mechanics that isn't affected by outside factors (except for Improved Uncanny Dodge, from a core POV). AoOs also depend on threatened squares, and yet there's lots of things preventing you from taking AoOs. Much of wich prevents you even form flanking :) I will answer yes. You're asking for evidence that isn't written, not because it doesn't exist, but because it has no reason to be written. Normally, you can make a melee attack. That fact that certain conditions stipulate that you can't attack while in these conditions illustrates an exception to the general rule. Why would it be necessary to specify that nauseated characters can't make attacks if they wouldn't normally be able to do so? So a flat footed charachter in the first round of combat threaten? Here's another brainteaser for you. General case scenario: you're not on your turn an no opponent provokes AoOs from you. Can you prove that you can attack? I can make an AoO if someone provoke it? Yes, so I threaten. The simplest and most coherent way to establish threat at any given point in time is to determine whether or not you could make melee attacks if it was your action at that given point in time. If was my action in that given point, I could cast spells that give me threat (like weapon of the deity). If it is a quickened spell, this spell give me threat for all the round. If it's not my action, and I would cosider as it is, I must conclude that since I can cast a quickened WoD spell, I give threat. QUESTION FOR YOU Funny game, I'll try to play. 1) How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? In the same way anyone justify that a creature that runs out of attack in her turn still threaten. Because an AoO is a melee attack. 2) If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you attack? Uhm... Funny. I was think that the point would be "can you make an attack", not "can you attack"... But I can reply to you with this question: If you run out of attacks, and it's your turn, can you attack? The answer to both is the same. But, I repeat, I think the point it's not "can you attack".
Leilond 07-02-07, 07:32 AM	Funny game, I'll try to play. Funny game? I never "played a game" in this discussion. I always replied with care and interest to ALL your question. It will be nice to have the same respect thanks I point out simple questions about your understanding of the rules because I see some things that doesn't work and I try to clarify how you make them work I'm simply asking you to do the same things I'm doing since 10 pages So, please, do not discredit my questions calling it a game, or there cannot be discussion between us, because no discussion can exists if both users do not pay the same respect to other user question Thank If you run out of attacks, and it's your turn, can you attack? Yes, for the same reason that a flat-footed character can attack. Because nothing in the rules say that you can't But you didn' responded to none of my questions I try again 1) How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? I'm not interested on "how all do". I'm interested in how YOU do. If you don't want to replie, let me know, don't worry 2) If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you make a melee attack?
Psion_3 07-02-07, 07:52 AM	My head hurts..this thread runs too fast.:hoppingma You can make a melee attack as long as you have the potential to make a melee attack. I think we can elaborate starting from this definition. This would lead to stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power feat to threaten, though. Maybe we should add that you have the potential if you could attack, but you didn't. You don't have the potential if you need spells like SSwiftness and such. (just to avoid something like dead creatures that threaten thank to a raise dead spell) Can someone help us elaborate from this, without bashing on each other? The "even when it's not your action" clause implies that if you can make a melee attack when it's your action, you also threaten when it's not your action. Actual opportunities to attack are irrelevant, as you threaten squares even when it's not your action. Mmhh, this would lead to a stunned creature with the UP feat that threatens on his opponent turn becasue he attacked in his turn. Thus, my position is that you threaten squares during your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during your turn, and that you threaten squares outside your turn if you can make melee attacks into them during the following turn (in order to accommodate for conditions that might prevent you from attacking). Thi s would lead to strange occurences: you could attack iìduring your turn, become stunned during your oppoent's turn, and being able to act again in your following turn. Thus, you would be able to threaten during your oppoent turn even if stunned. I think that the timeframe issue cannot be avoided. In a related problem, I don't see an issue with threat as is. It's flanking that's a bit flawed, as it's the only threat-dependent feature that never gets affected (unlike AoOs, which are often unavailable in many conditions). Maybe. But in order to resolve the threat issue we must first solve the threat problem. Where the rules say that provocation don’t matter? I hope I have correctly understood your question. In order to make AoOs against an opponentn who provoked them you must able to do them first. Thus, being able to make AoOs come first. Except that the benefit of snake's swiftness is not to threaten squares. Well, if I'm in a surprise round I cannot act, but the SS spell would allow me to do so. Would I threaten in this surprise round before the SS spell? Would I threaten in this surprise round after the SS spell? If it's not your turn, it's obvious that you do not threaten if something prevents you from taking any sort of action that involves an armed melee attack during your next turn. For example, if you become stunned after your turn, you'll remain stunned for an entire round, including during your next turn. Well, the stunning fist feat states: A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next action). Let's suppose Iì'm fighting against a monk and a barbarian The monk opponent readies a stunning fist against me if I move near him. During my turn I attack an opponent (I threaten). After my turn thr Barbarian bullrushes me toward the monk, that stuns me. He stuns me, and, due to his higher initiative count, on my following round I would not be stunned anymore: by your reasoning I should threaten in the mean time. In other words, you determine threat outside your actions by finding out if you would threaten if you were to act now. What about "you can threaten if you could, in this timeframe, attack if you wanted to"? Whats' so wrong wih this definition? Note: please, I'm not challenging anyone: this topic si interesting, and I think we could obtain a good definitive answer if we collaborate instead of getting mud to each other.
Leilond 07-02-07, 08:20 AM	I think we can elaborate starting from this definition. This would lead to stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power feat to threaten, though. Maybe we should add that you have the potential if you could attack, but you didn't. You don't have the potential if you need spells like SSwiftness and such. (just to avoid something like dead creatures that threaten thank to a raise dead spell) Can someone help us elaborate from this, without bashing on each other? We must rember that "specific rules" overwrites "general rules", always A flat-footed character cannot make AoO. This is a general rule A character with the cleave feat can make AoO when flat-footed. This is a specific rule A character cannot cast a spell during opponent turn. This is a general rule A character can cast a spell with casting time "immediate action" (feather fall). This is a specific rule So, a "special power" or a "feat" do not change the general rule, only provide an EXCEPTION to the general rule Mmhh, this would lead to a stunned creature with the UP feat that threatens on his opponent turn becasue he attacked in his turn. Being able to attack do not let you threaten if a specific rule prevent that For instance You can attack while disarmed, but you don't threaten because the "threatened square rule" say that you don't So, being able to attack is a prerequisite, but it isn't enought to threaten; there can be specific rules that prevent let you attack, but prevent you to threaten This means that a special power that grant you a single attack, don't grant you the treathening, because threateing isn't a prerequisite for attacking This would lead to strange occurences: you could attack iìduring your turn, become stunned during your oppoent's turn, and being able to act again in your following turn. Only if you do not consider the "condition". I'm stunned. Let's consider the question: if it was my turn and I was stunned, can I attack? The answer is NO The better question is Does the stunned condition prevent you any form of attack? What about "you can threaten if you could, in this timeframe, attack if you wanted to"? Whats' so wrong wih this definition? There's nothing wrong if you read "even when it is not your action" in the way you do But that sencences, I think, say us that you've not to consider this time frame, so you're definition is wrong, because it is against the rule The fact that I say "you're wrong" doesn't mean you really are. We're obviously talking about understanding, and we simply understand that sentence differently Common sense part If we consider the precise timeframe and the effective possibility to deliver an attack, you stop threatening after you run out of AoO, you stop threateing an opponent under cover after you drink a potion (because you cannot make AoO against him and you used your standard action to drink) and so on. All the rules will stop to represent the reality that they're designed to represent. We all know that the rules have an hard work to do that (represent the reality), but we must (I think) make all the effort to let them do that as well as they can. A character that defend himself half covered by a wall, cannot consider you "not a threaten", because you're probably going to swing him very early, you're moving, you're dodging, you're perfectly active. You simply cannot use the AoO mechanic... Rule mechanic start to become more a problem than an help. If you find a rule understanding that better represent the reality, I think that using that understanding is the best thing you can do Note: please, I'm not challenging anyone: this topic si interesting, and I think we could obtain a good definitive answer if we collaborate instead of getting mud to each other. I've noticed your very kind attitude, so I really respect your way to bring on the discussion. If, for any reason, I offended you, I apologise and please point it me out If, for any reason, I will offend you in the future, please point it me out and I'll apologise
Blackstorm_SK 07-02-07, 06:38 PM	Funny game? I never "played a game" in this discussion. I always replied with care and interest to ALL your question. It will be nice to have the same respect thanks Sorry it's not my intention to offend. It was only to say that I answer even if you make the question to Kal... really, no intentio to discredit or lacking respect. But you didn' responded to none of my questions I was thinking of yes.. at least to the first, nut no prob, I answer again. 1) How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? I'm not interested on "how all do". I'm interested in how YOU do. If you don't want to replie, let me know, don't worry Ehm... if I said what all do, it supposed that I do it as they do... :) But, to be clear: an AoO is a melee attack, thus is an attack. If a charachter runs out of attack he still threaten. In his turn as out of his turn, if he run out of attacks (in his turn) or AoOs (out of his turn) he still threaten. 2) If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you make a melee attack? the answer it's the same of when it's your turn and you run out of attacks. So, quoting you: nothing in the rules say that you can't [quote] A flat-footed character cannot make AoO. This is a general rule Unless he have combat reflexes. A character with the cleave feat can make AoO when flat-footed. This is a specific rule I hope you intend combat reflexes. Cleave doesn't allow you to make AoOs in any case. A character cannot cast a spell during opponent turn. This is a general rule A character can cast a spell with casting time "immediate action" (feather fall). This is a specific rule A readied action is a general rule, and with readied action you can cast during your opponent's turn. So, a "special power" or a "feat" do not change the general rule, only provide an EXCEPTION to the general rule Not in general. Much feats doesn't make an exception (like Agile, or Improved initiative, or such). Being able to attack do not let you threaten if a specific rule prevent that Right. For instance You can attack while disarmed, but you don't threaten because the "threatened square rule" say that you don't Uhm... in this particular case, the text after the rules refer to another rules, that is the unarmed strike rule, that says that you don't threat... there can be specific rules that prevent let you attack, but prevent you to threaten Excuse me, I think you've forgot a "don't"... This means that a special power that grant you a single attack, don't grant you the treathening, because threateing isn't a prerequisite for attacking So I don't need to know if I threaten when I check for AoOs... Because an AoO is an attack, and you've said that the threaten is not a prerequisite to attack. Only if you do not consider the "condition". I'm stunned. Let's consider the question: if it was my turn and I was stunned, can I attack? The answer is NO I want to quote Psion's example: Well, the stunning fist feat states: A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next action). Let's suppose Iì'm fighting against a monk and a barbarian The monk opponent readies a stunning fist against me if I move near him. During my turn I attack an opponent (I threaten). After my turn thr Barbarian bullrushes me toward the monk, that stuns me. He stuns me, and, due to his higher initiative count, on my following round I would not be stunned anymore: by your reasoning I should threaten in the mean time. In this case, the answer to your question is: if it was my turn, I wouldn't longer stunned, for the description of the feat. So I would threaten. The better question is Does the stunned condition prevent you any form of attack? Uhm... this question is really ambiguos. I can answer something like: a psion with the Unconditional Power can Teleport himself directly over the head of his opponent at, let's say, 90 ft. To the end of his round he fall on the opponent, causing damage: it's a form of attack, and the stunned condition doesn't prevent me to do it. There's nothing wrong if you read "even when it is not your action" in the way you do But that sencences, I think, say us that you've not to consider this time frame, so you're definition is wrong, because it is against the rule But you say that if you're stunned you consider the timeframe in wich you're stunned as a period of non-threaten. Common sense part If we consider the precise timeframe and the effective possibility to deliver an attack, you stop threatening after you run out of AoO, you stop threateing an opponent under cover after you drink a potion (because you cannot make AoO against him and you used your standard action to drink) and so on. All the rules will stop to represent the reality that they're designed to represent. Don't forget that you don't threaten even when you run out of attacks in your turn. We all know that the rules have an hard work to do that (represent the reality), but we must (I think) make all the effort to let them do that as well as they can. I think that you're forgetting that dnd rules are a simplification of reality. Like the fall damage. they represent a simplified reality. A character that defend himself half covered by a wall, cannot consider you "not a threaten", because you're probably going to swing him very early, you're moving, you're dodging, you're perfectly active. Yeah. But a 9/10 covered character, will still consider you a threaten? I don't think. a 9/10 cover means that an opponent have only about a 10% of my body to it, with aa great difficulty due to the wall that covering me. Rule mechanic start to become more a problem than an help. If you find a rule understanding that better represent the reality, I think that using that understanding is the best thing you can do As I've said some post ago, right. The rest is academical.
Marcus Majarra 07-03-07, 12:35 AM	And you will be wrong. Remember what "attacks" are by the RAW... for every attack, there's an Action type needed. So if you cannot make standard actions, nor full round actions, you haven't prepared an action and AoO are negated, you can't attack. How is the fact that AoOs are negated relevant at all? The fact that isn't written is a your problem, not mine Let's make it your problem then. Where is it written that characters cannot normally attack? Let's look at the RAW for the "attack" definition and which actions are required. Can I make standard actions? no. Can I make full round actions? no. Can I make nonactions (in order to deliver an Attack of Opportunity)? yes. So I can make a melee attack. How can you claim that you can make nonactions? Or, for that matter, how do you prove that AoOs are the only kind of nonaction that involves an attack? The free attack from snake's swiftness is obviously a nonaction and you can take it regardless of your ability to take AoOs, so how is this different? In any case, I can very well argue that you cannot take nonactions to make AoOs if an opponent doesn't provoke one. If you don't need an opponent to provoke an AoO for you to make one, then you should be able to demonstrate how you can make an AoO without an opponent provoking it. Your argument is unfounded. A rogue isn't able to cast at all, but he can cast a spell from a scroll. A cleric isn't able to cast magic missile, but if he has Anyspell he can... Obviously, as long an AoO is a melee attack, you must be able to do it, for doing it. I was using the general case as an example. You should take note that the two examples you provided are exception cases. Anyway, neither of your examples has to do with the comparison I established. I wasn't talking about casting spells from scrolls or circumventing the usual limits on what spells you can prepare. I was talking about the ability to cast a single spell as opposed to the ability to cast spells in general, compared to the ability to make a single type of attack as opposed to the ability to attack in general. a SSwiftness must be casted to give some benefit: you can cast it yourself, or someone can cast it to you, but it needs "activation", that is the merely fact of having this spell available, doesn't mean that it give me advantage. Instead the merely fact of are able to make AoOs give me the advantage of threat. AoOs also need activation, or have you foregone the necessity of an opponent provoking the AoO from you in the first place? In this respect, AoOs and snake's swiftness are not different. They both depend on outside factors in order to be used as a way to attack. If I'm acting now, I can do things that I cannot do when I'm not acting. A simple issue: Harm spell. If I'm unarmed (w/o IUS), and in my turn I cast quickened Harm, I get threat, for that spell. If it's not my turn, and I consider as if it's my turn, it means that, by your reasoning, I've threat, because if were my turn, I eventually can cast quickened Harm, that gives me threat. If you dont like quck Harm, try with quick Weapon of the Deity (players guide of faerun) Except that casting a spell does not give you the ability to attack. It only makes you armed in the case of touch spells. I can demonstrate this too: You're paralyzed. You can obviously cast a silent still harm. Can you deliver the spell? No, because you can't move, and by extension you cannot attack with the spell. Your example, however, is good in helping me clarify what it means being able to attack on your turn. Following the advice in RotG articles, I'd have to say that you have the ability to attack if you're able to take at least a standard action during your turn. Simply put, take any point in time between your current turn and the next. If you were to act at this moment and you're able to take at least a standard action, you can take that action to attack, correct? If at this point, you could attack and you were armed and within reach of an opponent, you would threaten said opponent. But what if I become paralized out of my turn, then the wiz dispel paralisys? Ther's a timeframe in wich I cannot make attacks... That's correct. Say that during the time you're paralyzed, you want to know if you threaten. If your turn to act would be now, could you take at least a standard action to attack? No, because your paralyzed, so you do not threaten. Now, let's say that you move forward in time to the point after the wizard dispels the paralysis, but before your next turn. If your turn to act were now, could you take at least a standard action to attack? Yes, so you do threaten. If the PHB states that you threaten, even if it's not your action, Uhm... it doesn't state exactly this... Actually, the PHB states this exactly: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action." (PHB137) This is the very reason why threat should always be determined as if it were your action. Much of wich prevents you even form flanking This is a generalization without basis. Very few mechanics explicitly break flanking, and fewer still explicitly break threat (to my knowledge, the only core location where threat is explicitly broken is during spellcasting; see PHB143). So a flat footed charachter in the first round of combat threaten? If he's armed and within reach of an opponent, yes, since he'd be able to attack if his action were now. I can make an AoO if someone provoke it? Yes, so I threaten. I can make an attack is someone casts snake's swiftness on me? Yes, so I threaten. If was my action in that given point, I could cast spells that give me threat (like weapon of the deity). If it is a quickened spell, this spell give me threat for all the round. If it's not my action, and I would cosider as it is, I must conclude that since I can cast a quickened WoD spell, I give threat. You've said it yourself: you can cast spells that give you threat. That's not what I'm talking about. If it were your action, could you attack now? Casting a spell is not attacking. You guys have stated it yourself: attacking is a standard action. If your turn were now, could you take a standard action to make an armed melee attack against an opponent? If so, then you threaten. I think we can elaborate starting from this definition. This would lead to stunned creatures with the Unconditional Power feat to threaten, though. We've addressed this issue above. Being able to manifest a power doesn't imply that you can deliver any kind of touch attacks. The entire "logic" that indicates that Unconditional Power breaks the restriction of not acting while stunned makes no sense. It only bypasses this restriction for the sole purpose of manifesting a power. Delivering the touch attack is not part of the manifestation of the power, although manifesters are allowed to deliver touch powers in the same round they manifest the power. Maybe we should add that you have the potential if you could attack, but you didn't. You don't have the potential if you need spells like SSwiftness and such. (just to avoid something like dead creatures that threaten thank to a raise dead spell) This kind of logic invalidates the entire notion of AoOs: you don't have the potential to make AoOs if you need for an opponent to provoke one from you. The only thing particular about AoOs is that they have a fixed (or variable, with Combat Reflexes) built-in limit. I've elaborated further on what's the most likely definition of the potential to attack that doesn't enter in conflict with anything in the rules: the ability to take a standard action to attack. Thi s would lead to strange occurences: you could attack iìduring your turn, become stunned during your oppoent's turn, and being able to act again in your following turn. Thus, you would be able to threaten during your oppoent turn even if stunned. I think that the timeframe issue cannot be avoided. Granted, the timeframe cannot be avoided. This is why I'm advocating on assigning threat as if your turn were now. This will inevitably include all timeframes. Well, if I'm in a surprise round I cannot act, but the SS spell would allow me to do so. Would I threaten in this surprise round before the SS spell? Would I threaten in this surprise round after the SS spell? I'll argue that snake's swiftness is of no benefit to surprised characters as unaware combattants don't get to act during the surprise round (PHB137). The spell doesn't bypass any limits with respect to acting; it merely provides an opportunity to attack. In order to take it, you need to be able to attack, which requires that you be able to act. You should note that snake's swiftness is of no benefit to stunned, paralyzed, or dazed characters as well, among various examples. What about "you can threaten if you could, in this timeframe, attack if you wanted to"? Whats' so wrong wih this definition? I believe the issue lies in detemining whether you could or couldn't attack in this timeframe. My main disagreement with the others here is that they seem to correlate the ability to attack with the ability to make AoOs and state that if you can't make AoOs, you can't attack when you're not acting. This, inherently makes no sense with the definition you're proposing, since you couldn't make an AoO, even if you wanted to, if an opponent doesn't provoke one from you. By extension, since you can't make an attack, even if you wanted to, you no longer threaten any squares. And since you no longer threaten any squares, you are no longer eligible to AoOs. This loop is inevitable when you make threat dependent on AoOs (when it's clearly the other way around). Your definition is quite accurate with the view I'm proposing that establishes that you can attack if, at this point in time, you could take a standard action to attack if it were your turn to act.
Psion_3 07-03-07, 03:22 AM	A character with the cleave feat can make AoO when flat-footed. This is a specific rule Really? Where did you find that? So, a "special power" or a "feat" do not change the general rule, only provide an EXCEPTION to the general rule And? We must address it, since there could be players that use them. Besides, the exception is found only by your interpretation. So, if you want to debate with me, you must start from a common perspective, or we'll arrive nowhere. Being able to attack do not let you threaten if a specific rule prevent that Right. But the stunned condition doesn't state that you don't threaten. It states thta you can't act. The UP removes this limit (otherwise you wouldn't be able to manifest a power) Thus, he removes the "no attack" limit. Does the stunned condition prevent you any form of attack? I was replying to Marcus example. If you read it you'll find the reason behind my answer. There's nothing wrong if you read "even when it is not your action" in the way you do But that sencences, I think, say us that you've not to consider this time frame, so you're definition is wrong, because it is against the rule That's not what I'm asking for. Let's assume that my interpretation is right, like a scientif experiment. Now, let's try to find something in the rule that doesn't mesh with it. Being able to manifest a power doesn't imply that you can deliver any kind of touch attacks. The entire "logic" that indicates that Unconditional Power breaks the restriction of not acting while stunned makes no sense. It only bypasses this restriction for the sole purpose of manifesting a power.Delivering the touch attack is not part of the manifestation of the power You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting This kind of logic invalidates the entire notion of AoOs: you don't have the potential to make AoOs if you need for an opponent to provoke one from you. The only thing particular about AoOs is that they have a fixed (or variable, with Combat Reflexes) built-in limit. For the AoOs issue, the question only needs to be completed: if somene provokes an AoOs, could you make an attack if you wanted to? Maybe we can start from here. I've elaborated further on what's the most likely definition of the potential to attack that doesn't enter in conflict with anything in the rules: the ability to take a standard action to attack. What about a creature that has no standard actions, but can cast a quickened spell? This is why I'm advocating on assigning threat as if your turn were now. This will inevitably include all timeframes. But rules change between your opponent's and your turn. You should note that snake's swiftness is of no benefit to stunned, paralyzed, or dazed characters as well, among various examples. But they are completeley different. Stunned, nauseated and so on present a limit: you can't act. When surprised you don't get to act: that's quite different. The SSwiftness spell gets around this limit, since nothing in the rules prevents you from act. You simply don't get to act. This, inherently makes no sense with the definition you're proposing, since you couldn't make an AoO, even if you wanted to, if an opponent doesn't provoke one from you. That's why I completed my definition above.
Leilond 07-03-07, 03:30 AM	All that I said is only my honest opinion How you justify that a creature that run out of AoO still threaten? But, to be clear: an AoO is a melee attack, thus is an attack. If a charachter runs out of attack he still threaten. In his turn as out of his turn, if he run out of attacks (in his turn) or AoOs (out of his turn) he still threaten. So you can be able to attack without being able to make any AoO You simply said "you threaten when you run out of attack", without justifying it If you run out of AoO, and it is your opponent turn, can you make a melee attack? the answer it's the same of when it's your turn and you run out of attacks. So, quoting you: nothing in the rules say that you can't The rules say that when you run out of AoO you cannot make any AoO The rules say that if you're flat-footed you cannot make any AoO The rules say that in BOTH situation you cannot make any AoO. Why you say that in the first situation you still threaten? Where is the difference in the rules? So I don't need to know if I threaten when I check for AoOs... Because an AoO is an attack, and you've said that the threaten is not a prerequisite to attack. AoO is one form of attack. It isn't the ONLY form of attack. You need to threaten to make an AoO, as written in the rules, but you don't need to threaten to attack in a square. Threatening is a prerequisite only for that particular type of attack that is called AoO, that isn't the only form of attack, nor it isn't the only form of attack that you can make during opponent turn, nor is the only form of action that you can make during opponent turn, nor is the only form of attack that you can make as general rule. It is only one of them, the form of attack that you can make when someone make an action that the rules say "provoke AoOs", and only that type of action is forbitten, not all the actions. So, you can be able to attack, but if something explicity prevent yuo from threatening a square you cannot do any AoO in that square, still being able to attack Being unable to make any AoO only means that you cannot make an AoO if someone make an action that provoke AoOs in a threatened square. This means that you threaten a square, but you cannot make AoO in that square In this case, the answer to your question is: if it was my turn, I wouldn't longer stunned, for the description of the feat. So I would threaten. You know my question won't be that My question will be I'm stunned. Well, if it was my turn and I was stunned, do I threaten? No. Uhm... this question is really ambiguos. I can answer something like: a psion with the Unconditional Power can Teleport himself directly over the head of his opponent at, let's say, 90 ft. To the end of his round he fall on the opponent, causing damage: it's a form of attack, and the stunned condition doesn't prevent me to do it.+ Sorry, you're right. Any form of melee attack But please, do not go on this road. You perfectly understand what I wanted to mean But you say that if you're stunned you consider the timeframe in wich you're stunned as a period of non-threaten. Yes, because the stunning condition prevent any form of melee attack, not only that particular form of attack called AoO Don't forget that you don't threaten even when you run out of attacks in your turn. Why? You cannot make any melee attack against that enemy. I think that you're forgetting that dnd rules are a simplification of reality. Like the fall damage. they represent a simplified reality. But the pourpose is that of representing it as well of they can Yeah. But a 9/10 covered character, will still consider you a threaten? I don't think. a 9/10 cover means that an opponent have only about a 10% of my body to it, with aa great difficulty due to the wall that covering me. 9/10 cover is a mere +8 to AC. That for a fighter can be pheraps a little problem, but I can still hit you and kill you So yes, I'm a threaten, for sure
Blackstorm_SK 07-03-07, 08:22 AM	I was using the general case as an example. You should take note that the two examples you provided are exception cases. Exceptions that are hardly used. Anyway, neither of your examples has to do with the comparison I established. I wasn't talking about casting spells from scrolls or circumventing the usual limits on what spells you can prepare. I was talking about the ability to cast a single spell as opposed to the ability to cast spells in general, compared to the ability to make a single type of attack as opposed to the ability to attack in general. Right. Get it, let's go on. AoOs also need activation, or have you foregone the necessity of an opponent provoking the AoO from you in the first place? In this respect, AoOs and snake's swiftness are not different. They both depend on outside factors in order to be used as a way to attack. Uhm... you don't need to cast an AoO on yourself to do it. In your turn, you need an opponent in reach to be able to attack he in melee. And this is even a ort of activation, following your reasoning. Except that casting a spell does not give you the ability to attack. It only makes you armed in the case of touch spells. But the spells aren't only touch delivered. Weapon of the deity summmon a weapon in your hands with wich you are proficient for the duration of the spell. So, this spell give you the ability to attack, cause render you armed, and gives you threat at the same conditions of an armed charachter. Simply put, take any point in time between your current turn and the next. If you were to act at this moment and you're able to take at least a standard action, you can take that action to attack, correct? If at this point, you could attack and you were armed and within reach of an opponent, you would threaten said opponent. Wrong. If you not armed, you dont threaten, right? It it's not your turn and you're unarmed (w/o IUS, obviously), following your reasoning, I can threaten: because if it was my turn, I could cast a quickened weapon of the deity, then I would be armed, the I could attack. But you cannot cast a quickened spell if it's not your turn and you're unarmed, if someone provokes an AoO. So, if I reasoning as if I were in my turn, I can conclude that I can threaten my enemy, because if it was my turn I could cast a quickened spell that gives me threat. That's correct. Say that during the time you're paralyzed, you want to know if you threaten. If your turn to act would be now, could you take at least a standard action to attack? Yes, if it was my turn I can take at least a standard action to attack casting a quickened freedom of movement, that remove the paralized condition. Actually, the PHB states this exactly: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action." (PHB137) That's different from "You threaten evene when it's not your turn" ;) If he's armed and within reach of an opponent, yes, since he'd be able to attack if his action were now. If his action were now, he's no longer flat footed. There is a change of condition. So, you can't consider it as if it was his turn, because if it was his turn, he's no longer flat-footed, so a condition is removed. I can make an attack is someone casts snake's swiftness on me? Yes, so I threaten. are you saying that if nobody has a SS prepared, for the merely fact that you threat if someone cast it on you, you threat? If it were your action, could you attack now? Casting a spell is not attacking. Harm is not an attack? Finger of Death is not an attack? You guys have stated it yourself: attacking is a standard action. Yes. If your turn were now, could you take a standard action to make an armed melee attack against an opponent? If so, then you threaten. If were your turn now, the conditions can chage, see the flat footed charachter at the start of the combat. We've addressed this issue above. Being able to manifest a power doesn't imply that you can deliver any kind of touch attacks. The entire "logic" that indicates that Unconditional Power breaks the restriction of not acting while stunned makes no sense. It only bypasses this restriction for the sole purpose of manifesting a power. In most cases, manifesting a power is a standard action. So I can make a standard action to attack, as I showed to Leilond. Delivering the touch attack is not part of the manifestation of the power, although manifesters are allowed to deliver touch powers in the same round they manifest the power. As Psion_3 has showed you, this is wrong. This kind of logic invalidates the entire notion of AoOs: you don't have the potential to make AoOs if you need for an opponent to provoke one from you. Uh? Why? What prevent me to make an AoO, if someone provokes it? This is the potential. Granted, the timeframe cannot be avoided. This is why I'm advocating on assigning threat as if your turn were now. This will inevitably include all timeframes. No. The "your turn" timeframe does not include the AoOs. And, as long as the timeframe cannot be avoided, as you said you must consider the timeframe, not a contenitor of timeframes. You simply said "you threaten when you run out of attack", without justifying it Hmmm. Let's try this way: An AoO is an attack. The rules doesn't says that if you run out of attacks you don't threaten. Now, if you want to understand what I'm saying, well. Otherwise, tell me, and I let fall this question. The rules say that when you run out of AoO you cannot make any AoO The rules says also that when you run out of standard/full round attacks you cannot make any standard/full round attack. The rules say that if you're flat-footed you cannot make any AoO And the rules says also that in your turn you cannot make standard/full round attacks if you're paralized. The rules say that in BOTH situation you cannot make any AoO. Yes. Why you say that in the first situation you still threaten? Where is the difference in the rules? Because in the second case you cannot make AoO even if you not run out of AoOs. It's simple. Now, answer to me: The rules says also that when you run out of standard/full round attacks you cannot make any standard/full round attack. And the rules says also that in your turn you cannot make standard/full round attacks if you're paralized. Why you say that in the first situation you still threaten? Where is the difference in the rules? AoO is one form of attack. It isn't the ONLY form of attack. You need to threaten to make an AoO, as written in the rules, but you don't need to threaten to attack in a square. An AoO is a melee attack. So, you're saying that I need to threaten to make a melee attack but I don't need to threat to attack. Threatening is a prerequisite only for that particular type of attack that is called AoO, AoO is a melee attack. I don't read in the rules that an AoO is a prticular type of attack, I read that is a single melee attack. that isn't the only form of attack, nor it isn't the only form of attack that you can make during opponent turn, nor is the only form of action that you can make during opponent turn, nor is the only form of attack that you can make as general rule. Never said that. It is the only form of attack you can make during opponent turn if you don't have readied actions, spells like SS, or such. It is only one of them, the form of attack that you can make when someone make an action that the rules say "provoke AoOs", and only that type of action is forbitten, not all the actions. In the cases in wich the AoOs is your only way to attack an opponent during his turn, if you can't make it, you don't threaten. So, you can be able to attack, but if something explicity prevent yuo from threatening a square you cannot do any AoO in that square, still being able to attack Yes, but this is because there are no squares in wich someone can provokes AoOs. Being unable to make any AoO only means that you cannot make an AoO if someone make an action that provoke AoOs in a threatened square. This means that you threaten a square, but you cannot make AoO in that square The question is always this: if you have no way to attack an opponent, how can you threaten he? You know my question won't be that My question will be I'm stunned. Well, if it was my turn and I was stunned, do I threaten? No. As I said, if it was your turn the conditions can changes. Sorry, you're right. Any form of melee attack But please, do not go on this road. You perfectly understand what I wanted to mean Be more accurate. If you say any form of attack, I understand any form of attack. Yes, because the stunning condition prevent any form of melee attack, not only that particular form of attack called AoO Stunned condintion says that you can't act, not that you can't attack. Why? You cannot make any melee attack against that enemy. I was following your reasoning. Following it, you're saying that if you run out of attacks in your turn, you don't threaten, bacause you can't make an attack. But the pourpose is that of representing it as well of they can The purpouse is to representing a simplified reality as well as they can. 9/10 cover is a mere +8 to AC. That for a fighter can be pheraps a little problem, but I can still hit you and kill you So yes, I'm a threaten, for sure Hey, hey, brake on. This was the commons sense part, right? I'm trying to separate it from the rules part, as you've asked some time ago. So, back with the common sense: 9/10 of cover means that an opponent can see about 10% of my body, and that I can in no time get a total cover. How can I consider you a threat?
Leilond 07-03-07, 10:36 AM	But the spells aren't only touch delivered. Weapon of the deity summmon a weapon in your hands with wich you are proficient for the duration of the spell. So, this spell give you the ability to attack, cause render you armed, and gives you threat at the same conditions of an armed charachter. Sorry, but being harmed isn't enought to threaten. You've to be (for instance) not paralized, nor nauseated an so on This mean that if I'm paralized and a spell/power make a magical sword appear in my hand, I'm still paralized and do not threten. The spell/power have to remove the "unable to attack" condition. Give me a "weapon" (or a charge in my hand) do not let me attack while paralized Yes, if it was my turn I can take at least a standard action to attack casting a quickened freedom of movement, that remove the paralized condition. The question is. Can you attack in your turn in the paralized condition? No. You have FIRST to remove the paralisys That's different from "You threaten evene when it's not your turn" The effect, in my understanding, is the same If his action were now, he's no longer flat footed. There is a change of condition. So, you can't consider it as if it was his turn, because if it was his turn, he's no longer flat-footed, so a condition is removed. You can be flat-footed during your turn. And you can change the "flat-footed" with any other condition that prevent you from attacking an opponent (cover), the rules still work Harm is not an attack? Finger of Death is not an attack? Harm ISN'T an attack. Harm is a spell. If you cast HARM from 100m from your opponent, holding the charge, you're not attacking. Only the "touch attack" tha you use to deliver the effect is an attack. You do not attack when you cast the spell, you attack when you touch your enemy, that can happen a lot of rounds later The touch attack can be part of casting the spell, but casting the spell isn't attacking itself An AoO is an attack. The rules doesn't says that if you run out of attacks you don't threaten. Now, if you want to understand what I'm saying, well. Otherwise, tell me, and I let fall this question. Does this means that you can always attack unless otherwise stated? The rules don't say that you cannot attack an enemy under cover too. It say you cannot do AoO, but you can still attack the enemy in different ways Because in the second case you cannot make AoO even if you not run out of AoOs. It's simple. So you're saying: I cannot attack my enemy but I threaten him The rules says also that when you run out of standard/full round attacks you cannot make any standard/full round attack. And the rules says also that in your turn you cannot make standard/full round attacks if you're paralized. Why you say that in the first situation you still threaten? Where is the difference in the rules? Because in my understanding the only things to consider is being in a condition that prevent ANY FORM OF ATTACK as GENERAL ABILITY An AoO is a melee attack. So, you're saying that I need to threaten to make a melee attack but I don't need to threat to attack. No. I sayd that you need to threaten to make ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ATTACK. You don't need to threaten to make ALL FORM OF ATTACK If you don't threaten you can attack, except one type of attack: the AoO Nowhere in the rules it say that you have to threaten an enemy to attack him. AoO is a melee attack. I don't read in the rules that an AoO is a prticular type of attack, I read that is a single melee attack. I already showed few rows over this that you can attack an opponent without being able to make AoO to an opponent. If something prevent you to make an AoO it doesn't prevent you from attacking. Or do you say that any condition that prevent me from make an AoO against an opponent prevent me from any form of attack against that opponent? Remember that you can attack with prepared action between the move action and the standard action of your enemy, so you can attack in opponent turn against an enemy under cover, if for any reason being able to attack during oppoent turn matter at all Never said that. It is the only form of attack you can make during opponent turn if you don't have readied actions, spells like SS, or such. Why "if you don't have readied action"? Isn't readied action a normal action in the rules? Isn't the attack from a readied action a normal attack? Why do you arbitrary remove that from the issue? By the way, the opponent turn isn't a problem, because the rules say to ignore that In the cases in wich the AoOs is your only way to attack an opponent during his turn, if you can't make it, you don't threaten. So if you run out of AoO you cannot attack, because you can't make it, so you don't threaten So, you can be able to attack, but if something explicity prevent yuo from threatening a square you cannot do any AoO in that square, still being able to attack Yes, but this is because there are no squares in wich someone can provokes AoOs. So you can be able to attack without being able to make AoO The question is always this: if you have no way to attack an opponent, how can you threaten he? Is that I'm asking to you. If you run out of AoO you have no way to attack an opponent, how can you threaten him? In my understanding you still threaten because being unable to make an AoO doesn't mean that there's no way to attack the opponent. You can still attack him in different ways As I said, if it was your turn the conditions can changes. But the question is: what if it was my turn and the condition were this? The question isn't: what if it was my turn and the condition were the condition that will be in my turn? Stunned condintion says that you can't act, not that you can't attack. If you don't consider "cannot act" as a condition that prevent you from attacking, then you can threaten while stunned I consider "attacks" a subset of "action", so every "attack" is an "action" (not every action is an attack), thus if you cannot act you cannot attack. If you cannot attack it doesn't mean you cannot act I consider AoO a subset of "attack", so every AoO is an "attack" (not every attack is an AoO), thus if you cannot attack you cannot make AoO. If you cannot make AoO it doesn't mean you cannot attack I was following your reasoning. Following it, you're saying that if you run out of attacks in your turn, you don't threaten, bacause you can't make an attack. Sure, if you read the rules your way. In my way, if you run out of attack you can still attack. The difference is that I use the same meaning of CAN for all pourpose BEING ABLE AS GENERAL ABILITY You, instead, use the can in different ways, depending of the situation. You say that when you cannot make AoO because you run out of them, you consider as you can still make AoO, but if you cannot make an AoO because your enemy is under cover you consider as you cannot make an AoO This is the final consequence of your reasoning 1) You run out of AoO: you cannot make AoO, you're considered like you can make AoO 2) Enemy under cover: you cannot make AoO, you're considered like you cannot make AoO 9/10 of cover means that an opponent can see about 10% of my body, and that I can in no time get a total cover. How can I consider you a threat? Common sense How? Because I can still hit you to death with a single swing, and I will try to do it within few second... I'm already swinging my sword actively. I think it's threatening, very threatenig Because you've to dodge my swings actively paying attention to what I'm doing, thus you cannot pay the same attention to my ally on the other side.ù
Marcus Majarra 07-03-07, 01:15 PM	You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting This is referring to the action taken. Attacking with a touch spell is implicitly a nonaction that's part of the action of casting the spell. It is not the actual casting of the spell, as evidenced by the very notion that you can hold the charge on a touch spell to later deliver it, as well as by the fact that you can move between the casting and the delivery of the touch spell. In any case, delivering a touch spell requires that you attack the target, and Unconditional Power doesn't allow you to make attacks while stunned. For the AoOs issue, the question only needs to be completed: if somene provokes an AoOs, could you make an attack if you wanted to? Maybe we can start from here. This raises the entire question of what defines the potential to attack. I could also ask you: if someone casts snake's swiftness on you, could you make an attack if you wanted to? The scenario here is the same: you're depending on another's actions in order to get your chance to attack, but both depend on a pre-existing ability to attack. What about a creature that has no standard actions, but can cast a quickened spell? Casting a spell is not attacking. If you want to know if you can attack, you have to try and attack; not cast a spell. But rules change between your opponent's and your turn. How so? The only difference between your turn and your opponent's is that you do not get your usual allotment of actions outside your turn. This alloment represents opportunities to act, not the ability to do so. But they are completeley different. Stunned, nauseated and so on present a limit: you can't act. When surprised you don't get to act: that's quite different. The SSwiftness spell gets around this limit, since nothing in the rules prevents you from act. You simply don't get to act. How can the phrase "don't get to act" not be seen as a limit? Being unaware during a surprise round indeed prevents you from acting during the surprise round. Uhm... you don't need to cast an AoO on yourself to do it. In your turn, you need an opponent in reach to be able to attack he in melee. And this is even a ort of activation, following your reasoning. No, but you need for an opponent to provoke the AoO. This is the activation. You can't make AoOs just by being in reach and capable of melee attacks. If that where the case, I'd have my fighters make AoO all round long. But the spells aren't only touch delivered. Weapon of the deity summmon a weapon in your hands with wich you are proficient for the duration of the spell. So, this spell give you the ability to attack, cause render you armed, and gives you threat at the same conditions of an armed charachter. You're not adressing the issue. You determine the ability to threaten at any time by determining if you could take a standard action to attack, if your turn were now. How is casting spell that provides you with a weapon making an attack? Your example is not relevant. Simply look at things this way: take any point in time. If your character were to act now, could he take a standard action to make a melee attack? If so, then he threatens. Wrong. If you not armed, you dont threaten, right? It it's not your turn and you're unarmed (w/o IUS, obviously), following your reasoning, I can threaten: because if it was my turn, I could cast a quickened weapon of the deity, then I would be armed, the I could attack. But you cannot cast a quickened spell if it's not your turn and you're unarmed, if someone provokes an AoO. So, if I reasoning as if I were in my turn, I can conclude that I can threaten my enemy, because if it was my turn I could cast a quickened spell that gives me threat. Your reasoning is incorrect. In order to attack at that point in time, you'd need for the weapon of the deity to already exist. I'm not telling you to see if you could cast a spell and attack. I'm telling you to see if you could attack. An unarmed character, outside his turn, doesn't threaten because, if it were his turn to act now, he would not be able to make an armed melee attack. He'd have to take another action first. Yes, if it was my turn I can take at least a standard action to attack casting a quickened freedom of movement, that remove the paralized condition. Again, no. You'd have to remove the paralysis before being able to attack. So at this point in time, you couldn't attack, even if it were your action. Don't look for actions that would allow you to attack. Just look to the ability to attack. Whether the spell is quickened or not doesn't change the fact that you'd need to cast the spell before being able to attack. If his action were now, he's no longer flat footed. There is a change of condition. So, you can't consider it as if it was his turn, because if it was his turn, he's no longer flat-footed, so a condition is removed. This reasoning is false with flat-footed. Flat-footed characters are able to attack (as you can attack while balancing). Their only prohibition with attacking has to do with AoOs, that's all. You need to stop generalizing AoO restrictions into threat or attack restrictions. In most cases, manifesting a power is a standard action. So I can make a standard action to attack, as I showed to Leilond. Let me get this straight. You're stunned, and because you have Unconditional Power, you can take the attack standard action? Where's the sense in that? Being able to take a standard action to manifest a psionic power doesn't mean you can take a standard action to do anything else. Uh? Why? What prevent me to make an AoO, if someone provokes it? This is the potential. Notice how you used the term "prevent" here. What prevents me from attacking if someone casts snake's swiftness on me? There's the same potential here as well. You see, there's nothing that actively prevents the ability to attack unless specified otherwise. This means that, by default, you can always attack. No. The "your turn" timeframe does not include the AoOs. And, as long as the timeframe cannot be avoided, as you said you must consider the timeframe, not a contenitor of timeframes. I'm not entirely sure of what you mean here. Why should AoOs even be accounted for, since you need to be able to attack in order to make AoOs?
thondar 07-03-07, 07:20 PM	The UP problem General rule: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. special circumstance rule: A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions.. comment 1: A melee attack it's an action? yes (by raw and by common sense too) comment 2: (Generally) can you do an melee attack without take action? no Consequence: A stunned creature don't threat. comment 3: stunned don't negate explicitly AoO so it allow threat in your interpretation? i think no and i think you use this same way to prove that (so comments 1 & 2 are true for you too). general rule 2: A stunned creature don't threat because he can act. special circumstance rule: UP: Your mental strength is enough to overcome some otherwise disabling conditions. You can manifest an unconditional power when you are dazed, confused, nauseated, or stunned. Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers. Comment 4: UP allow to do a melee attack? no. Comment 5: UP remove the stunned condition? no Comment 6: UP allow to act? yes, but only some kind of actions so it don't remove the "can't act" condition Comment 7: comments 1 & 2 are true using UP? yes Consequence: A stunned creature with UP don't threat. Comment 8: stunned don't negate explicitly AoO and UP allow same actions so it allow threat in your interpretation? i think no and i think you use this same way to prove that (so comments 4 & 5 & 6 are true for you too). Comment 9: UP is a special circumstance rule relatively to stunned creature. So it introduce an exception to the stunned condition. So if it give threat (but it don't give threat) it will be a exception to rule and it don't prove nothing. Can a stunned creature manifest a power? no (general rule) Can a stunned creature using UP manifest a power? yes (special circumstance rule) This prove that a stunned creature can manifest always a power? no
Egres 07-04-07, 03:34 AM	This is referring to the action taken. Attacking with a touch spell is implicitly a nonaction that's part of the action of casting the spell. The text explicitely states that it's part of the casting, Marcus. as part of the casting cannot be misunderstood. Thus, if you can cast the spell, you can touch. In any case, delivering a touch spell requires that you attack the target, and Unconditional Power doesn't allow you to make attacks while stunned. Delivering the touch spell is part of the casting. And the feat allows you to manifest a power. Thus, you can touch with it. I could also ask you: if someone casts snake's swiftness on you, could you make an attack if you wanted to? If someone casts it? Yes. If someone dont cast it, and you ask me the same question: no. The scenario here is the same: you're depending on another's actions in order to get your chance to attack, but both depend on a pre-existing ability to attack. That's not the same scenario at all. Basing on what Pson_3 propose, the question regarding AoOs is: "if provoked, could you make an attack if you wanted to? The SSwiftness spell is something outside this question. Not to mention that without it you aren't able to attack, while without AoO provoked you are able to make AoOs, before an opponent provokes them. Casting a spell is not attacking. If you want to know if you can attack, you have to try and attack; not cast a spell. But if I cast a spell that allows me an attack, do I threaten? How so? The only difference between your turn and your opponent's is that you do not get your usual allotment of actions outside your turn. This alloment represents opportunities to act, not the ability to do so. "Allotment of actions"? If you aren't able to use them outside your turn, you are out of luck. In fact you are able to make AoOs without an opponent provoking them: you are able before the opponent provokes them. Before the SSwiftness spell you aren't able at all to make one of "our normal allotment of attacks" How can the phrase "don't get to act" not be seen as a limit? Being unaware during a surprise round indeed prevents you from acting during the surprise round.. Dont get to act means thta you don't have the opportunity to do so, but the spell removes it. The stunned conditions says something different: it says that you can't, no matter if you have the opportunity to do so or not. No, but you need for an opponent to provoke the AoO. This is the activation. You can't make AoOs just by being in reach and capable of melee attacks. If that where the case, I'd have my fighters make AoO all round long. but you are able to do therm before they are provoked. Before the SS spell, instead, you can't make an attack, and if you are flat footed you aren't able to make AoO even if provoked. If your character were to act now, could he take a standard action to make a melee attack? If so, then he threatens. But if he can cast a quickened spell that allows him to attack, would he threaten? Can you answer to this Marcus? Comment 4: UP allow to do a melee attack? no. Yes, as part of the casting. Comment 6: UP allow to act? yes, but only some kind of actions so it don't remove the "can't act" condition In this kind of condition there are powers that let you attack with them. UP is a special circumstance rule relatively to stunned creature. So it introduce an exception to the stunned condition. So if it give threat (but it don't give threat) it will be a exception to rule and it don't prove nothing. It proves that your reasoning about "if I threaten during my turn I threaten outside my turn" is wrong. Deal with it. Can a stunned creature using UP manifest a power? yes (special circumstance rule) This prove that a stunned creature can manifest always a power? no This prove that a stunned creature with the UP can always manifest a power.
Blackstorm_SK 07-04-07, 09:41 AM	Sorry, but being harmed isn't enought to threaten. You've to be (for instance) not paralized, nor nauseated an so on In fact I've said that it gives you threat at the same conditions of an armed character. You've missed to read this part of my post? The question is. Can you attack in your turn in the paralized condition? No. You have FIRST to remove the paralisys If you say that I must cosider if I can thretan it it were my turn, I say that if it were my turn I can remove the paralized condition. You can be flat-footed during your turn. And you can change the "flat-footed" with any other condition that prevent you from attacking an opponent (cover), the rules still work I'm in doubt: do you read the posts carefully? We're speaking of the first round of combat. Psion_3 has clearly said that. So deal with the proposed scenario, don't draw another one. Harm ISN'T an attack. Harm is a spell. If you cast HARM from 100m from your opponent, holding the charge, you're not attacking. Right, I was mean that casting it upon your opponent is an attack. The rules don't say that you cannot attack an enemy under cover too. It say you cannot do AoO, but you can still attack the enemy in different ways Ways that if not are allowed, you can't use. So you're saying: I cannot attack my enemy but I threaten him No, I'm sayng that I'm run out of attacks. Because in my understanding the only things to consider is being in a condition that prevent ANY FORM OF ATTACK as GENERAL ABILITY Since you says with this emphasys: a stunned psion can make a form of attack. No. I sayd that you need to threaten to make ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ATTACK. You don't need to threaten to make ALL FORM OF ATTACK The particular form of attack you said is definede as a single melee attack. So you're saying that I must threaten to make a single melee attack. I already showed few rows over this that you can attack an opponent without being able to make AoO to an opponent. So? If something prevent you to make an AoO it doesn't prevent you from attacking. In your turn. Or do you say that any condition that prevent me from make an AoO against an opponent prevent me from any form of attack against that opponent? Never said that. I think you don't get exactly what I'm saying. Remember that you can attack with prepared action between the move action and the standard action of your enemy, so you can attack in opponent turn against an enemy under cover, if for any reason being able to attack during oppoent turn matter at all You have to readying the action. If it's not readied you can't use it. Why "if you don't have readied action"? Isn't readied action a normal action in the rules? Isn't the attack from a readied action a normal attack? Why do you arbitrary remove that from the issue? I'm not removing it: I'm saying that if you not have readied an action, you can't use the radied action. By the way, the opponent turn isn't a problem, because the rules say to ignore that Yeah, sure. So out of my turn I'm allowed to act as if it were my turn for the purpouse of ability to attack? Answer this. So if you run out of AoO you cannot attack, because you can't make it, so you don't threaten No. As you threaten in your turn when you run out of attacks, you threaten as well when you run out of AoOs out of your turn. So you can be able to attack without being able to make AoO In my turn? Yes? Out of my turn? Only if I have a readied action, or a spell like SS, or such. Otherwise out of your turn if you are prevented from making AoOs you don't threat. Is that I'm asking to you. If you run out of AoO you have no way to attack an opponent, how can you threaten him? In the same way of when it's your turn and you run out of attacks and you have no way to attack an opponent. In my understanding you still threaten because being unable to make an AoO doesn't mean that there's no way to attack the opponent. You can still attack him in different ways If these ways are allowed. If you haven't casted on yourself SS, nor you've readied action, or such, you don't have other ways than AoOs. But the question is: what if it was my turn and the condition were this? The question isn't: what if it was my turn and the condition were the condition that will be in my turn? Ok. If it were my turn and the condition are this, I could cast a quickened freedom of movement or such spell that removes that condition. If it were my turn I could do it. I consider AoO a subset of "attack", so every AoO is an "attack" (not every attack is an AoO), thus if you cannot attack you cannot make AoO. If you cannot make AoO it doesn't mean you cannot attack If they're the only kind of attacks allowed, yes, this mean that you can't attack. Sure, if you read the rules your way. In my way, if you run out of attack you can still attack. How can you attack if you run out of attacks? You, instead, use the can in different ways, depending of the situation. No. This is the final consequence of your reasoning 1) You run out of AoO: you cannot make AoO, you're considered like you can make AoO 2) Enemy under cover: you cannot make AoO, you're considered like you cannot make AoO So? This prove nothing. You're saying even that, in your turn: 1) You run out of attacks: you cannot make attacks, you're considered like you can make attacks 2) You're paralized: you cannot make attacks you're considered like you cannot make attacks It's exactly the same situation. Since an AoOs is a melee attack. Common sense How? Because I can still hit you to death with a single swing, and I will try to do it within few second... I'm already swinging my sword actively. I think it's threatening, very threatenig Because you've to dodge my swings actively paying attention to what I'm doing, thus you cannot pay the same attention to my ally on the other side.ù Ok. And what if there's no ally, we're alone, you and I, and I've cover 9/10 from you, like a slit through a wall? I can in practically no time cover from you. Are you a threat? This is referring to the action taken. Attacking with a touch spell is implicitly a nonaction that's part of the action of casting the spell. It's not a non action, is a part of casting, to be accurate. In any case, delivering a touch spell requires that you attack the target, and Unconditional Power doesn't allow you to make attacks while stunned. When you manifesting a power/cast a spell you can deliver the spell in the same round with no time cost. This raises the entire question of what defines the potential to attack. I could also ask you: if someone casts snake's swiftness on you, could you make an attack if you wanted to? Yes. The scenario here is the same: you're depending on another's actions in order to get your chance to attack, but both depend on a pre-existing ability to attack. With SS spell, it slightly different. If you've not the spell active on you, you don't have the pre-existing ability to make an attack. Casting a spell is not attacking. If you want to know if you can attack, you have to try and attack; not cast a spell. But casting a spell could give me the ability to attack. And if it's quickened? How so? The only difference between your turn and your opponent's is that you do not get your usual allotment of actions outside your turn. This alloment represents opportunities to act, not the ability to do so. So I can't consider out of my turn as if it were my turn, right? How can the phrase "don't get to act" not be seen as a limit? Being unaware during a surprise round indeed prevents you from acting during the surprise round. We're speaking of the first round, not the surprise round. You're not adressing the issue. You determine the ability to threaten at any time by determining if you could take a standard action to attack, if your turn were now. How is casting spell that provides you with a weapon making an attack? Your example is not relevant. If it were my turn I could do it. If you're saying that I cannot use what I could if it was my turn, it means that I can't considere the "out of my turn" as if it were my turn. Simply look at things this way: take any point in time. If your character were to act now, could he take a standard action to make a melee attack? If so, then he threatens. If it were my turn now, I could do a lot of things that allow me to take a standard action to attack. If I must consider what if it were my turn, I must consider all the things that I could do in my turn that allow me at least a standard attack. Your reasoning is incorrect. In order to attack at that point in time, you'd need for the weapon of the deity to already exist. No. If it is quickened I can cast the spell and have threat exactly in that point of time. as per every quickened spell thar render me armed. I'm not telling you to see if you could cast a spell and attack. I'm telling you to see if you could attack. An unarmed character, outside his turn, doesn't threaten because, if it were his turn to act now, he would not be able to make an armed melee attack. He'd have to take another action first. Again, no. You'd have to remove the paralysis before being able to attack. So at this point in time, you couldn't attack, even if it were your action. Don't look for actions that would allow you to attack. So? Read the "if it were my turn" above. Just look to the ability to attack. Whether the spell is quickened or not doesn't change the fact that you'd need to cast the spell before being able to attack. I reapet: if it were my turn I could do it. You're saying that I must reasoning as if it were my turn, so I reasoning this way. And reasoning this way lead me to say that I could cast quickened spells that give me ability to attack and even threat. This reasoning is false with flat-footed. Flat-footed characters are able to attack (as you can attack while balancing). Their only prohibition with attacking has to do with AoOs, that's all. You need to stop generalizing AoO restrictions into threat or attack restrictions. Marcus, we're talking of the first round of combat. Doin't change the scenario. [/quote]I'm not entirely sure of what you mean here. Why should AoOs even be accounted for, since you need to be able to attack in order to make AoOs?[/QUOTE] You need to be able to attack in order to make any type of attack.
Marcus Majarra 07-04-07, 01:20 PM	Delivering the touch spell is part of the casting. And the feat allows you to manifest a power. Thus, you can touch with it. Assuming we go with this definition (which makes little sense, since I don't see you interrupting the spellcasting by making an AoO against a caster delivering a touch spell), it still doesn't invalidate the perspective I'm proposing. Even if you could manifest a power (or cast a spell) that includes an attack, and assuming that being allowed to manifest the power (or cast the spell) includes being allowed to make the attack, it still doesn't qualify as taking a standard action to attack. While your action may incorporate an attack, it is not an attack in and of itself. This is similar to charging while slowed. While, as part of your standard action, you're attacking, you're still not attacking as a standard action. In any case, Unconditional Power is a moot counter-example, since it only works with Personal powers and powers that affect the manifester. That's not the same scenario at all. Basing on what Pson_3 propose, the question regarding AoOs is: "if provoked, could you make an attack if you wanted to? The SSwiftness spell is something outside this question. Not to mention that without it you aren't able to attack, while without AoO provoked you are able to make AoOs, before an opponent provokes them. While the AoO occurs before the action that provokes it, you can't make an AoO if an opponent doesn't provoke one. In any case, you still need to demonstrate how having AoOs left makes it so that you can attack. This endeavour is ineviatably due to failure, since you need to be able to attack to make AoOs. And you haven't demonstrated how snake's swiftness is different from AoOs in that the attack is only accessible when another does a specific action. But if I cast a spell that allows me an attack, do I threaten? You only threaten after casting the spell. You guys are all misunderstanding the view I'm offering: If, at any given point in time, you could take a standard action to attack if it were your turn to act, you threaten all squares into which you can make an armed melee attack. An unarmed cleric, outside his turn, cannot threaten because it's not possible for him to take a standard action to make an armed melee attack, even if it were his turn to act. He could cast the harm spell if it were his turn to act, but casting a spell is not the same as attacking as a standard action. If the same cleric had cast harm on his turn and held the charge on the spell, then he would indeed threaten outside his turn, since it would then be possible for him to take a standard action to make an armed melee attack if his turn were to come up. "Allotment of actions"? If you aren't able to use them outside your turn, you are out of luck. You need to prove that you're not able to use them. Not having actions to attack is like having no opportunities for AoOs: they don't disable you, but they don't give you a chance to do them. In fact you are able to make AoOs without an opponent provoking them: you are able before the opponent provokes them. This is false. You can't perform an AoO if a creature doesn't provoke it. Whether the creature can actually carry out its provoking action has nothing to do with the fact that it has to provoke the AoO from you. Here's a simple question: when are you allowed to actually make an AoO? Dont get to act means thta you don't have the opportunity to do so Prove it. But if he can cast a quickened spell that allows him to attack, would he threaten? Can you answer to this Marcus? No, because casting a spell is not attacking as a standard action. We're not looking for equivalents; just standard attacks. Just because a mechanism can lead to your ability to make armed attacks. Can a character armed with a bow but without an arrow drawn attack with his bow? No. He can draw an arrow as a free action, after which he would be able to attack, but without having the arrow in hand, he can't attack with his bow. For the spellcaster, it's the same. Without casting that quickened spell, he can't attack. If he were armed with a melee weapon, however, he could. When you manifesting a power/cast a spell you can deliver the spell in the same round with no time cost. Which would make attacking a nonaction that is part of casting the spell/manifesting the power. Regardless, this point is irrelevant. With SS spell, it slightly different. If you've not the spell active on you, you don't have the pre-existing ability to make an attack. How so? By this kind of logic, if you don't have an opponent provoking an AoO from you (which equates to having the spell active on you, since both provide you with an opportunity to attack), you wouldn't have the pre-existing ability to make an attack. Can you show me even a single instance in which you can make an AoO without having a creature provoke it? If you can, then I concede the point completely. As it is, in order to make AoOs, creatures have to provoke them (otherwise you can't make AoOs). And if creatures have to provoke them, they need to be in threatened squares. And if they are in threatened squares, then you already have the pre-existing ability to attack them, as you wouldn't threaten their squares if this weren't true. AoOs depend on being able to attack, not the other way around, regardless of whether it's your turn or not. But casting a spell could give me the ability to attack. And if it's quickened? If casting the spell gives you the ability to attack, you're implying that you do not have it already. And if you do not have it already, then you couldn't attack even if it were your turn to act. The problem with the way you guys are reasoning is that you're assuming that when I say "if it were your turn to act now," I mean that you get your full round's allotment of actions and that one of them can be a standard action to attack. This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: if I could act right now, could I take a standard action to attack? Not to cast a spell, not to draw a weapon. An action to attack. IF the answer is yes, then I threaten. Otherwise, I don't. So I can't consider out of my turn as if it were my turn, right? This is only true with respect to what actions you're actually taking, not the ones you can take. When he's not on his turn, does a bard lose his bardic music ability? Of course not. He still has the ability; just not the opportunity to do so. With attacking, it's the same thing, except that all creatures have the ability to attack all the time. We're speaking of the first round, not the surprise round. Psion_3 was talking about the surprise round, and I responded to that. During the first round of combat, threat is resolved normally, whether you've had the chance to act yet or not. If it were my turn I could do it. If you're saying that I cannot use what I could if it was my turn, it means that I can't considere the "out of my turn" as if it were my turn. If it were my turn now, I could do a lot of things that allow me to take a standard action to attack. If I must consider what if it were my turn, I must consider all the things that I could do in my turn that allow me at least a standard attack. There are plenty of things you could do if it were your turn to act. I'm only addressing one: could you attack as a standard action right now if it were your turn to act? If so, you threaten. If you have to take other actions in order to attack as a standard action, then you obviously couldn't attack right now, if your turn were to come up. No. If it is quickened I can cast the spell and have threat exactly in that point of time. as per every quickened spell thar render me armed. And you get no disagreement from me here. The thing is, you'd only be armed AFTER casting the quickened spell, so you couldn't attack before casting the quickened spell. With Quick-Draw, I could draw the weapon as a free action and be armed, but that doesn't mean I threaten before drawing the weapon. With a quickened weapon of the deity, you could attack after casting the spell, but you wouldn't threaten before doing so. Here's another way to illustrate the perspective I'm offering: imagine you were constantly given a standard action to make an armed melee attack. Could you take it? If so, then you threaten. Marcus, we're talking of the first round of combat. Doin't change the scenario. The first round of combat receives no special ttreatment from me. It's like all the subsequent rounds of combat, with respect to threat. Not having acted yet doesn't equate to not being able to act, and I ask that you demonstrate otherwise, if you can. You need to be able to attack in order to make any type of attack. Quite true. So in order to make AoOs (a type of attack), you need to be able to attack. If you're accounting for AoOs, then you're demonstrating that you already have the ability to attack, before AoOs are even taken into account.
thondar 07-04-07, 05:23 PM	Delivering the touch spell is part of the casting. And the feat allows you to manifest a power. Thus, you can touch with it. UP don't allow to use that power because it affect another person Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers.
Blackstorm_SK 07-04-07, 07:38 PM	Assuming we go with this definition (which makes little sense, since I don't see you interrupting the spellcasting by making an AoO against a caster delivering a touch spell), Uh? Interrupting the casting of the spell is come when you are casting the spell. While, as part of your standard action, you're attacking, you're still not attacking as a standard action. So you don't threaten while charging slowed? I'm a bit confused on what you mean... Which would make attacking a nonaction that is part of casting the spell/manifesting the power. Regardless, this point is irrelevant. But give you threat at the same conditions of an armed character. How so? By this kind of logic, if you don't have an opponent provoking an AoO from you (which equates to having the spell active on you, since both provide you with an opportunity to attack), you wouldn't have the pre-existing ability to make an attack. Can you show me even a single instance in which you can make an AoO without having a creature provoke it? If you can, then I concede the point completely. Really? Wow :D Big deal! I'll try to get :D Opportunist (Ex): Once per round, the rogue can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as the rogue’s attack of opportunity for that round. Even a rogue with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round. An ally hit my opponent. I can make an AoO, but my opponent have not provoked an AoO... I win? :D As it is, in order to make AoOs, creatures have to provoke them (otherwise you can't make AoOs). And if creatures have to provoke them, they need to be in threatened squares. A creature with cover doesn't provoke an AoO while acting, but you say that it's in a threatened square.... And if they are in threatened squares, then you already have the pre-existing ability to attack them, as you wouldn't threaten their squares if this weren't true. AoOs depend on being able to attack, not the other way around, regardless of whether it's your turn or not. To attack you must being able to attack, it's a tautology. If casting the spell gives you the ability to attack, you're implying that you do not have it already. And if you do not have it already, then you couldn't attack even if it were your turn to act. The problem with the way you guys are reasoning is that you're assuming that when I say "if it were your turn to act now," I mean that you get your full round's allotment of actions and that one of them can be a standard action to attack. This is not what I'm saying. So, sorry, you're saying that when you say "as if it were my turn" you don't mean "as if it wer my turn" ? :confused: Really, I don't understand. What I'm saying is: if I could act right now, could I take a standard action to attack? Not to cast a spell, not to draw a weapon. An action to attack. IF the answer is yes, then I threaten. Otherwise, I don't. But if I could act now, why I shouldn't use the stuff that give me the possibility to attack? It's not as if it were my turn, then. This is only true with respect to what actions you're actually taking, not the ones you can take. When he's not on his turn, does a bard lose his bardic music ability? Of course not. He still has the ability; just not the opportunity to do so. With attacking, it's the same thing, except that all creatures have the ability to attack all the time. Sorry, but if it's not you're turn you are really prevented from making standard/full round attack (unless you've readied an action, or unless someone cast a spell on you). Psion_3 was talking about the surprise round, and I responded to that. During the first round of combat, threat is resolved normally, whether you've had the chance to act yet or not. During the first round of combat, if your initiative has to come you are flat footed. Do you threaten? If you say yes because if it were your turn you could take a standard action, I'll say that if it were your turn you would no longer be flat footed. It's a change of condition, how you resolve it? There are plenty of things you could do if it were your turn to act. I'm only addressing one: could you attack as a standard action right now if it were your turn to act? If so, you threaten. If you have to take other actions in order to attack as a standard action, then you obviously couldn't attack right now, if your turn were to come up. So, it is not as if it were my turn. Because if it were my turn, I could attack as a standard action exactly right now casting a quickened spell. And you get no disagreement from me here. The thing is, you'd only be armed AFTER casting the quickened spell, so you couldn't attack before casting the quickened spell. But this is a thing tha would be allwed to me if it were my turn. Really, what I don't understand is this: why you claim that I must considere if it were my turn, then you give me limitations as if it weren't my turn? If I cosinder if it were my turn, I could consider all the possibilities. If you don't give me the possibility of reasoning whit all the stuff allowed if it were my turn, then is not as if it were my turn. And your poit fall. With a quickened weapon of the deity, you could attack after casting the spell, but you wouldn't threaten before doing so. Right. Now, can you tell me why this is true? Be clear, I know that's true, but I want see what you say. depending on your answer I could have some point little unclear to me in your point of view. Here's another way to illustrate the perspective I'm offering: imagine you were constantly given a standard action to make an armed melee attack. Could you take it? If so, then you threaten. But you weren't give constantly given a standard action. The first round of combat receives no special ttreatment from me. It's like all the subsequent rounds of combat, with respect to threat. Not having acted yet doesn't equate to not being able to act, and I ask that you demonstrate otherwise, if you can. Never said that they're equal. Quite true. So in order to make AoOs (a type of attack), you need to be able to attack. If you're accounting for AoOs, then you're demonstrating that you already have the ability to attack, before AoOs are even taken into account. So threat isn't a prerequisite. It's concomitant: you need to be able to make this type of attack and you must threat.
Blackstorm_SK 07-04-07, 08:20 PM	UP don't allow to use that power because it affect another person Can I cast Bend Reality with UP?
Marcus Majarra 07-04-07, 08:53 PM	Uh? Interrupting the casting of the spell is come when you are casting the spell. So, basically, you can interrupt a caster from delivering a touch spell? In an attempt to justify threat with Unconditional Power, you're arguing that you can attack with a power if you can manifest it. By definition, this would make delivering the touch power part of manifesting a power, and the manifester would be subject to AoOs when attempting to deliver the touch. If this is how you feel, then by all means you could attack with an Unconditional Power (were it not for the fact that the power has to affect you). So you don't threaten while charging slowed? I'm a bit confused on what you mean... What I meant was that certain actions include making an attack. By definition, this attack is a nonaction that's part of the other action you're using. This has no relevance to threat, as I'm suggesting you consider threat as if you were acting to attack, not to do anything else. But give you threat at the same conditions of an armed character. That's more or less accurate. I define threat by the ability to attack, being armed, and being within reach. The whole controversy lies in what defines the ability to attack. I argue that, by default, all creatures can act and attack. Tu support this claim, I bring as evidence the fact that certain conditions specify that you lose the ability to act, such as the stunned condition. This implicitly suggests that you had the ability to act and attack prior to suffering from the condition. So far, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. As long as you retain the ability to act and attack, you might as well threaten as long as you're armed and within melee reach. The truth is, you'll only have the chance to act when an opportunity to do this presents itself. When your turn begins, you're allowed a full-round's actions' worth. When an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you're allowed a single attack. When someone casts snake's swiftness on you, you're also allowed a single attack. What all of these have in commmon is that these are all opportunities to take specific actions or sets of actions. The argument you guys are presenting implies that something is actively enabling you to attack. This makes no sense, as you can't seem to clearly establish what seems to be actively enabling a creature to attack. I see arguments about being able to attack outside your turn because you can perform AoOs and being unable to attack outside your turn because you're denied AoOs. It's a foregone conclusion that having the ability to make AoOs means you have the ability to attack. However, not having the ability to make AoOs has no relevance to your ability to attack. Why? Because you need to be able to attack to make AoOs. You don't need to be able to make AoOs to attack, whether it's your turn or not, because they're incontroversible proof that you can attack outside your turn without AoOs. An ally hit my opponent. I can make an AoO, but my opponent have not provoked an AoO... I win? Actually, I was expecting you to bring up the Opportunist ability. What provokes the AoO is the opponent being hit in melee by an ally. No win for you, I'm afraid. A creature with cover doesn't provoke an AoO while acting, but you say that it's in a threatened square.... That's correct. Being in a threatened square doesn't mean you're subject to AoOs. It only means your opponent is capable of attacking you. Being capable of attacking doesn't necessarily imply that you're automatically capable of performing AoOs. And if you want to be specific, a character with cover still provokes AoOs. His opponent simply can't execute the AoO. See cover rules with respect to AoOs for the specifics. To attack you must being able to attack, it's a tautology. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in order to make an attack of opportunity, you need to be able to make an attack. It's not a tautology; it's merely stating requirements. So, sorry, you're saying that when you say "as if it were my turn" you don't mean "as if it wer my turn" ? Really, I don't understand. Okay, let me say this in a different way. If your turn were to come up now, could you make an attack as a standard action before taking any other action? This is what I mean. During the first round of combat, if your initiative has to come you are flat footed. Do you threaten? If you say yes because if it were your turn you could take a standard action, I'll say that if it were your turn you would no longer be flat footed. It's a change of condition, how you resolve it? I don't need to resolve it. Being flat-footed doesn't make you unable to attack. It only denies you AoOs. Not having acted yet during the first round of combat doesn't mean you're not capable of acting. There's no such condition anywhere. So, it is not as if it were my turn. Because if it were my turn, I could attack as a standard action exactly right now casting a quickened spell. Can you put spells aside? Your argument is irrelevant. How can you say that you could attack as a standard action right now if you need to cast a spell to do so? Look at your PHB. Attack is a standard action. Imagine that's the only action available to you. Can you make it? If so, then you threaten. But this is a thing tha would be allwed to me if it were my turn. Really, what I don't understand is this: why you claim that I must considere if it were my turn, then you give me limitations as if it weren't my turn? If I cosinder if it were my turn, I could consider all the possibilities. If you don't give me the possibility of reasoning whit all the stuff allowed if it were my turn, then is not as if it were my turn. And your poit fall. Fine then. Don't see it as having your entire turn come up now. See it as having only a standard action to perform a regular attack. Can you make it? If yes, you threaten. The entire point was to determine threat as if you had the action to attack. Not the action to cast a spell first. If you're stunned for one round, even if you got an action to make a standard attack now, you couldn't use it. So you don't threaten. Right. Now, can you tell me why this is true? Be clear, I know that's true, but I want see what you say. depending on your answer I could have some point little unclear to me in your point of view. Because prior to casting the spell, you're unarmed. By extension, you don't threaten. If you need to cast a spell to be armed, then you don't threaten, since you need to be armed to threaten (and you're not armed at the time you start your action). But you weren't give constantly given a standard action. Maybe I wasn't clear with my earlier explanation. Go with this one if it seems clearer. You threaten when you could make a standard attack, if you were given a standard action to do so. So threat isn't a prerequisite. It's concomitant: you need to be able to make this type of attack and you must threat. False. Threat is a prerequisite. If you don't threaten squares, you don't get to make attacks of opportunity, since an opponent needs to be in a threatened square for you to perform an attack of opportunity against him.
Blackstorm_SK 07-04-07, 10:23 PM	So, basically, you can interrupt a caster from delivering a touch spell? Well, actually if I interrupt his spel, I interrupt even the deliver of the spell. In an attempt to justify threat with Unconditional Power, you're arguing that you can attack with a power if you can manifest it. By definition, this would make delivering the touch power part of manifesting a power, and the manifester would be subject to AoOs when attempting to deliver the touch. I can't check now, but it seems to me that the rules states that the touch spells render you armed, so when you deliver a touch spell you're considered armed. The AoO is provoked from casting the spell, not from delivering it. If this is how you feel, then by all means you could attack with an Unconditional Power (were it not for the fact that the power has to affect you). If I can cast Bend Reality with UP, I think that I could duplicate a touch power. But I don't know if I can, because I don't know if it considered to affects the manifester or not What I meant was that certain actions include making an attack. By definition, this attack is a nonaction that's part of the other action you're using. This has no relevance to threat, as I'm suggesting you consider threat as if you were acting to attack, not to do anything else. If I deliver a touch spell I think that I'm attacking. Otherwise, if I'm not attacking I could cast harm or such with invisibility w/o terminate the effect of the spell. That's more or less accurate. I define threat by the ability to attack, being armed, and being within reach. The whole controversy lies in what defines the ability to attack. So threat need the ability to attack as requisite. I argue that, by default, all creatures can act and attack. Tu support this claim, I bring as evidence the fact that certain conditions specify that you lose the ability to act, such as the stunned condition. Yes, clear. This implicitly suggests that you had the ability to act and attack prior to suffering from the condition. So far, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. If nothing prevent you from attack yes, you're right. As long as you retain the ability to act and attack, you might as well threaten as long as you're armed and within melee reach. But the ability to make certain type of attack can be negated if you're not in your turn. The truth is, you'll only have the chance to act when an opportunity to do this presents itself. When your turn begins, you're allowed a full-round's actions' worth. When an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you're allowed a single attack. Yes. When someone casts snake's swiftness on you, you're also allowed a single attack. What all of these have in commmon is that these are all opportunities to take specific actions or sets of actions. Yes. The argument you guys are presenting implies that something is actively enabling you to attack. I find difficult in making a standard attack out of my turn w/o SS or readied actions. This makes no sense, as you can't seem to clearly establish what seems to be actively enabling a creature to attack. Uh? I see arguments about being able to attack outside your turn because you can perform AoOs and being unable to attack outside your turn because you're denied AoOs. Yes, speaking of the case in wich you've no spell or readied actions or such. If your only way to make an attack is an AoO, and this is negated, you're not capable of making an attack. It's a foregone conclusion that having the ability to make AoOs means you have the ability to attack. Yes, since an AoO is an attack. However, not having the ability to make AoOs has no relevance to your ability to attack. Why? Because you need to be able to attack to make AoOs. So the ability to attack is a prerequisite for AoOs? You don't need to be able to make AoOs to attack, Out of my turn? If I have no other way, actually yes, I need to make an AoO to attack. whether it's your turn or not, because they're incontroversible proof that you can attack outside your turn without AoOs. Yes, if you can. Actually, I was expecting you to bring up the Opportunist ability. What provokes the AoO is the opponent being hit in melee by an ally. The opponent doesn't provoke an AoO. The AoO granted by Opportunist isn't provoked at all frome the opponent. "Being hit" doesn't provoke AoO. No win for you, I'm afraid. Sigh... :( :P That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in order to make an attack of opportunity, you need to be able to make an attack. It's not a tautology; it's merely stating requirements. Yes. So making an AoO requires that you can attack that square. Okay, let me say this in a different way. If your turn were to come up now, could you make an attack as a standard action before taking any other action? This is what I mean. Ok, so, is not as if it were my turn. I don't need to resolve it. Being flat-footed doesn't make you unable to attack. It only denies you AoOs. Not having acted yet during the first round of combat doesn't mean you're not capable of acting. There's no such condition anywhere. But means that you can't make standard attacks. and for what you've said above: if I have right now a standard action I would be no more flat footed. Your reasoning in this case fall upon the change of condition. Can you put spells aside? Your argument is irrelevant. How can you say that you could attack as a standard action right now if you need to cast a spell to do so? Look at your PHB. Attack is a standard action. Imagine that's the only action available to you. Can you make it? If so, then you threaten. If I have only a standard action I can still cast quickened spells. You cannot ignore that, if we talking about the rules. Fine then. Don't see it as having your entire turn come up now. See it as having only a standard action to perform a regular attack. Can you make it? If yes, you threaten. The entire point was to determine threat as if you had the action to attack. Not the action to cast a spell first. Well, your cutting off all the action that I can do in my turn but the standard action. It seems to me somewhat... strange, so to speak. Because prior to casting the spell, you're unarmed. By extension, you don't threaten. If you need to cast a spell to be armed, then you don't threaten, since you need to be armed to threaten (and you're not armed at the time you start your action). Wait, I'm not asking this, I'm asking: why I can't cast a quickened spell or using quick draw feat when someone's action could get me tha chance of making an AoO? False. Threat is a prerequisite. If you don't threaten squares, you don't get to make attacks of opportunity, since an opponent needs to be in a threatened square for you to perform an attack of opportunity against him. If you don't mind, I prefer to left this issue for later. Don't worry, I get it, but I need some clarification from you before reply to this central issue.
Leilond 07-05-07, 05:02 AM	If you say that I must cosider if I can thretan it it were my turn, I say that if it were my turn I can remove the paralized condition. The question is. During your turn can you attack while paralized? If you remove the paralysis you won't be paralized, that isn't the reply to the question. The question is: can you attack during your turn in paralized condition? Right, I was mean that casting it upon your opponent is an attack. Again NO. Casting the spell is one thing, delivering the attack is another. Casting the spell isn't an attack, only the touch spell is an attack You do not cast "harm on someone", you cast harm and then deliver the attack to someone No, I'm sayng that I'm run out of attacks. If you run out of attack you cannot attack Since you says with this emphasys: a stunned psion can make a form of attack. Melee attack? The particular form of attack you said is definede as a single melee attack. So you're saying that I must threaten to make a single melee attack. Exactly. Nat all the melee attack are forbitten. Only those delivered as consequence of an enemy provoking it If I cannot make AoO, I can still attack in my turn and during the opponent turn (readied action), so not all melee attack are forbitten AoO is a melee attack. I don't read in the rules that an AoO is a prticular type of attack, I read that is a single melee attack. I already showed few rows over this that you can attack an opponent without being able to make AoO to an opponent. So? So I showed you that you don't need to threaten to attack. You can attack without threatening. This mean that the bolded sentence is wrong, I never said that If something prevent you to make an AoO it doesn't prevent you from attacking. In your turn. 1) Wrong. I can attack during my oppoent turn with a readied action 2) Being able to attack in my turn is enought to threaten, as the rules say (my understanding) You have to readying the action. If it's not readied you can't use it. Tell me a condition that prevent me to use a readied action and I will respond you showing how my understanding of the rules work For instance if you're under cover don't prevent me to ready an action. Thus, if for any reason being able to attack during opponent turn matter at all (and I think it doesn't matter at all), I can still do it I'm not removing it: I'm saying that if you not have readied an action, you can't use the radied action. If for any reason being able to attack during opponent turn matter at all (and I think it isn't necessary), if the condition I'm in doesn't prevent me from ready an action, I can ready it, no matter if I did or I didn't, I can Yeah, sure. So out of my turn I'm allowed to act as if it were my turn for the purpouse of ability to attack? Answer this. Sorry... I'm not sure I understood your question. For threatening pourpose, if the condition doesn't prevent you from acting you're considered active and threatening No. As you threaten in your turn when you run out of attacks, you threaten as well when you run out of AoOs out of your turn. In my understanding it doesn't matter if you run out of attacks, so I agree with you But in your understanding if you run out of attack you cannot attack. How can you threaten In my turn? Yes? Out of my turn? Only if I have a readied action, or a spell like SS, or such. Otherwise out of your turn if you are prevented from making AoOs you don't threat. But "out of my turn" isn't a matter at all, because the rules say to ignore that. If the condition doesn't remove your "ability to attack" during your turn, it doesn't remove the "ability to attack" at all. It can remove the ability to deliver an AoO If you run out of AoO you are prevented from making AoOs, how can you threaten in your interpretation? In the same way of when it's your turn and you run out of attacks and you have no way to attack an opponent. And how can you threaten in your understanding of the rules if you've not any way to attack? If these ways are allowed. If you haven't casted on yourself SS, nor you've readied action, or such, you don't have other ways than AoOs. Already replied some rows up Ok. If it were my turn and the condition are this, I could cast a quickened freedom of movement or such spell that removes that condition. If it were my turn I could do it. If you cast quickened you change the condition. The question is to attkack in THIS condition, not attacking after removing it If they're the only kind of attacks allowed, yes, this mean that you can't attack. But the rules don't say that, you need to be able to deliver a form of melee attack, regardless of the turn. So, if the condition do not prevent any form of melee attack, standard action attack and AoO, you're considered able to attack How can you attack if you run out of attacks? If you cannot make AoO you can't at all. Thus, in your undestanding of the rules, how can you threaten? In mine you still threaten because the "can attack" as the meaning of "general ability", like "can speak english", while in your understanding you require to pratically being able to deliver an attack NOW Thus, in my understanding you still threaten How can you threaten in your undestanding while you run out of attack if you haven't any other way to attack? You cannot attack but you threaten. How can you justify this? 1) You run out of attacks: you cannot make attacks, you're considered like you can make attacks Sorry? You cannot but you're considered as you can? Why? I cannot understand that Ok. And what if there's no ally, we're alone, you and I, and I've cover 9/10 from you, like a slit through a wall? I can in practically no time cover from you. Are you a threat? Common sense Sure! I can swing and kill you... Isn't that a threaten? But casting a spell could give me the ability to attack. And if it's quickened? Totally ininfluent. IF you're paralized and you find a way in the rules to cast a spell but the spell require you to deliver a touch attack you can't do it, the paralized condition must be removed first If it were my turn I could do it. If you're saying that I cannot use what I could if it was my turn, it means that I can't considere the "out of my turn" as if it were my turn. The issue wasn't that. The question is: can you attack while paralized during your turn? If you "remove the paraysis" you're not attacking "while paralized" If it were my turn now, I could do a lot of things that allow me to take a standard action to attack. If I must consider what if it were my turn, I must consider all the things that I could do in my turn that allow me at least a standard attack. But you have to respond the question: can I attack while paralized during my turn? If you remove the paralysis you're not attackin "while paralized" No. If it is quickened I can cast the spell and have threat exactly in that point of time. as per every quickened spell thar render me armed. But you "changed the condition". The question is "in this condition", without changing it I reapet: if it were my turn I could do it. You're saying that I must reasoning as if it were my turn, so I reasoning this way. And reasoning this way lead me to say that I could cast quickened spells that give me ability to attack and even threat. I repeat: can you attack while paralized during your turn? If you "remove the paraysis" you're not attacking "while paralized" If I deliver a touch spell I think that I'm attacking. Otherwise, if I'm not attacking I could cast harm or such with invisibility w/o terminate the effect of the spell. If you cast HARM without delivering the attack you're not attacking yet, so you don't terminate the effect of the spell, because casting HARM isn't attacking itself So the ability to attack is a prerequisite for AoOs? The ability to attack is a prerequisite for threatening. Threateing is a prerequisite for AoOs P.S. As side note. I contacted the customer service. They're replies aren't "official rules", so if you don't like them you can freely ignore this, but some user can find interesting This is the mail Riccardo, Thank you for writing. - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you enemy has cover relative to you? Yes - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you are flat-footed because you didn't acted yet? Yes - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you are flat-footed because you're balancing on a slippery surface? Yes - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you cannot make any AoO against anyone (flat-footed)? Yes - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies against a particular enemy if you cannot make AoO only against that enemy (cover)? Yes The tricky part about flanking is that it specifies that you must be opposite an ally who threatens a square, not one that is capable of making attacks of opportunity. Threatening does not necessarily require you to be able to make an attack of opportunity, but means you must be able to attack them. Please refer to the Threatened square section on page 137 of the Player's Handbook. Please let me know if you need anymore help! Good Gaming!
thondar 07-05-07, 11:17 AM	Can I cast Bend Reality with UP? Not for attack because Only personal powers and powers that affect your person can be manifested as unconditional powers.
Marcus Majarra 07-05-07, 01:28 PM	I can't check now, but it seems to me that the rules states that the touch spells render you armed, so when you deliver a touch spell you're considered armed. The AoO is provoked from casting the spell, not from delivering it. And here, you are dissociating attacking to deliver a touch spell from the act of casting the spell. Thus, anything that would enable you to cast the spell wouldn't necessarily enable you to deliver the touch. You can't have this in one way and not in the other. Either the touch attack is part of the spellcasting and you provoke AoOs for attempting the touch, or the touch isn't part of the spellcasting (it is effectively a nonaction included in the act of spellcasting) and is governed by its own rules (in this case, you couldn't deliver an unconditional touch power since manifesting the power and delivering the touch are two separate things). If I deliver a touch spell I think that I'm attacking. Otherwise, if I'm not attacking I could cast harm or such with invisibility w/o terminate the effect of the spell. This is why you would threaten if you were already armed with a touch spell. You can't deliver a touch spell without casting the spell first, so you're not armed prior to casting the spell and thus do not threaten. The reasoning is simple: if you were given a chance to attack, right now, could you make it? If so, you threaten. If you have to do soemthing else first, then you can't make the attack right now. If nothing prevent you from attack yes, you're right. Exactly. Something that will prevent you from attacking will be explicitly stated as such. But the ability to make certain type of attack can be negated if you're not in your turn. Really? Where is your ability to attack negated outside your turn? And even if it were limited to certain types of attacks, how does being limited in specifics limit you in general. If I tell my player's wizard: you can't cast magic missile, does this mean he can't cast spells at all? As a final blow to the entire AoO issue, where is it stated that AoOs are the only form of attack you can make outside your turn? I find difficult in making a standard attack out of my turn w/o SS or readied actions. Just like I find it difficult to make AoOs without someone provoking it. If you were to account for only the opportunities present to attack, you would never threaten any squares unless you were acting. This is explicitly not the case, as creatures threaten even when they're not acting. The entire opposing argument is based around what "can make an attack" means. If you're talking about actually having a chance to perform an attack, then you would only threaten on your action. This makes no sense. The easiest way to see if you "can make an attack" is to see if it's possible if you were given a chance to do it. Yes, speaking of the case in wich you've no spell or readied actions or such. If your only way to make an attack is an AoO, and this is negated, you're not capable of making an attack. This would be true if AoOs were your only way of attacking outside your turn. Nowhere in the RAW is it stated that AoOs are your only means of attack outside your turn. While it may often occur that you have no other means of attacking outside your turn, you're by no means restricted to only this type of attack. For your idea to be true, the PHB would have to state something along the lines of "unless otherwise specified, the only way for you to attack outside your turn is to make AoOs." But means that you can't make standard attacks. and for what you've said above: if I have right now a standard action I would be no more flat footed. Your reasoning in this case fall upon the change of condition. Where is it stated that until your first turn comes up in the first round of combat, you cannot act? Does this mean that, until your first turn comes up, you lose the ability to attack? If so, how do you justify being able to make AoOs during this time through Combat Reflexes? The feat only states that you regain the ability to make AoOs while being flat-footed. By your logic, this wouldn't enable the character to make AoOs before his first turn comes up because he can't act until his first initiative comes up. Not having acted yet is not equivalent of not being able to act. If I have only a standard action I can still cast quickened spells. You cannot ignore that, if we talking about the rules. I'm not arguing about what you can do with a standard action. I'm telling you that you need to assume that the only action you could take is a standard attack. Nothing else. You can't interpret having an opportunity to cast a spell as being the same as having an opportunity to attack, even if the spell incorporates an attack. If you start doing so, then you could start arguing that slowed characters threaten everything within their charging range, simply because they could attack those people using a certain type of standard action. Forget other action types. Just consider the standard attack. If you were given one now, could you make it? If so, you threaten. The founding principle behind this idea is to determine threat as if you had a chance to attack right now. Wait, I'm not asking this, I'm asking: why I can't cast a quickened spell or using quick draw feat when someone's action could get me tha chance of making an AoO? Here's why. Let's say you're unarmed. You have the Quick-Draw feat. An opponent moves next to you and starts casting a spell. Can you make an AoO against the opponent? No, because you don't have a weapon in hand, and if you were given a chance to make an armed melee attack now, you couldn't take it. If you were given a chance to take a standard action, you'd have to do something else with that action before being allowed to attack. If you cast a quickened vampiric touch, you'd have to cast the spell before being able to deliver the touch. P.S. As side note. I contacted the customer service. They're replies aren't "official rules", so if you don't like them you can freely ignore this, but some user can find interesting This is the mail He shoots; he scores!
Egres 07-05-07, 02:25 PM	While your action may incorporate an attack, it is not an attack in and of itself. This is similar to charging while slowed. While, as part of your standard action, you're attacking, you're still not attacking as a standard action. Unofortunately all this "you threaten if you have a standard action to attack" is only a theory, your theory, that doesn't mesh well with the rest of the rules. That's why your answer is unsubstantial, no offense meant. In fact, I'm attacking: thus your theory doesn't stand. We can try to figure out a better theory, if you like. While the AoO occurs before the action that provokes it, you can't make an AoO if an opponent doesn't provoke one. The "opportunist" example proves you wrong. This endeavour is ineviatably due to failure, since you need to be able to attack to make AoOs. Prove it. You only threaten after casting the spell. Thus I threaten. Since touching my oppponent is part of the spellcasting, I can atatck as a free action. Thus, I threaten with only a free action left. What now? You need to prove that you're not able to use them. Not having actions to attack is like having no opportunities for AoOs: they don't disable you, but they don't give you a chance to do them. If no one cast SSwiftness on me I'm not able to make that attack. On the other hand, even if no one provoke an AooO, I'm able to make them. You can't perform an AoO if a creature doesn't provoke it. Whether the creature can actually carry out its provoking action has nothing to do with the fact that it has to provoke the AoO from you. That's why I wrote that you are able to make an AoO. Here's a simple question: when are you allowed to actually make an AoO? When there are occasions to do so. When you are able to make an AoO? Prove it. "You don't get to act" is different, in plain English, from "you can't act". Let's suppose there's an effect that allows you to atatck outside your turn: a stunned creature couldn't benefit from it, but a surprsided creature could, because it has not the "you can't act". Not to mention that I can cite a nice source to support my point: you. Not having acted yet is not equivalent of not being able to act. But if he can cast a quickened spell that allows him to attack, would he threaten? Can you answer to this Marcus? No, because casting a spell is not attacking as a standard action. That's what I wanted you to say. So, I can make an armed attack, but I don't threaten? UP don't allow to use that power because it affect another person You can attack yourself. Actually, I was expecting you to bring up the Opportunist ability. What provokes the AoO is the opponent being hit in melee by an ally.Wrong. The word "provokes" appears nowhere in the description of the ability. The opponent doesn't do anything, but the AoO comes the same. You lose, Marcus. I'm saying that in order to make an attack of opportunity, you need to be able to make an attack. Can you answer to the question "can I attack" if the only attack available are AoOs? He shoots; he scores! I hope you are joking. The CustServ is one of the most unreliable source of the planet in the D&D world. Not to mention that you were the first to say that you don't want to be compared or cited within Leilond. And Leilond stated the same thing for you.(do you remember the silly "stunned do threaten?" yeah, that's the reason)
Marcus Majarra 07-05-07, 04:57 PM	Unofortunately all this "you threaten if you have a standard action to attack" is only a theory, your theory, that doesn't mesh well with the rest of the rules. That's why your answer is unsubstantial, no offense meant. In fact, I'm attacking: thus your theory doesn't stand. How doesn't it mesh well with the rules? The "opportunist" example proves you wrong. No, it doesn't. What provokes the attack of opportunity from the Opportunist ability? It's your opponent being hit in melee by an ally. The question you need to ask yourself is simple: what happened that caused the Opportunist rogue to get his attack of opportunity? Prove it. Very well. For you to be entitled to an AoO against an opponent, you must have threatened squares. This is evidenced by the fact that only two kinds of actions can provoke AoOs (PHB137): 1) Moving out of a threatened square 2) Performing a distracting act while in a threatened square In both cases, your opponent must be on a threatened square. In order for you to have a threatened square, you must be able to attack, as you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action. Thus, the fact that you have threatened squares means you're capable of attacking. And since you need threatened squares in order to make AoOs, you must thus be able to attack in order to execute AoOs. Thus I threaten. Since touching my oppponent is part of the spellcasting, I can atatck as a free action. Thus, I threaten with only a free action left. What now? That's the entire point. If you need to cast a spell to threaten, it's like saying you need to cast a spell to attack. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm simply telling you: imagine you were given an armed standard melee attack all the time. If you can make the attack, you threaten. If no one cast SSwiftness on me I'm not able to make that attack. On the other hand, even if no one provoke an AooO, I'm able to make them. You're telling me you're able to make an attack of opportunity even when it's not provoked? Show me one example in which you're making an unprovoked attack of opportunity. While I'll certainly agree that you are capable of making attacks of opportunity regardless of whether one is provoked or not, you'll never actually make it without the provocation. Similarly, while you're always capable of making attacks regardless of whether you'll have an action to do so or not, you'll never actually make it without having the action to do it. You need to find evidence that you're forbidden from attacking, not that you don't have a way to do it. A spellcaster who has cast his daily allotment of spells doesn't become incapable of casting spells, even if he has no way of casting them. "You don't get to act" is different, in plain English, from "you can't act". Let's suppose there's an effect that allows you to atatck outside your turn: a stunned creature couldn't benefit from it, but a surprsided creature could, because it has not the "you can't act". Not to mention that I can cite a nice source to support my point: you. Except that on surprise rounds, you're not only suffering from being flat-footed on account of not having acted yet. You're also in a position where you "don't get to act." And while I stick by my claim that surprised characters can't act on the surprise round, it is only a minor point and will only establish that unaware characters threaten during the surprise round. If you want me to consider that the surprise round is no different than the first combat round, then I won't. That's what I wanted you to say. So, I can make an armed attack, but I don't threaten? Before casting the spell, could you make an armed attack? No, you'd have to cast the spell to do it. It's a simple idea people: okay, your turn is over. Imagine I gave you a single standard melee attack (as in the attack action, under standard actions). Can you make an armed melee attack with it right now? Yeah? Well you threaten. The entire idea of being able to threaten, even when it's not your action, implies that you threaten as if you had the action to attack, and nothing else. You're not just attacking when you're casting a spell. You're just attacking when you're using a standard action attack. You can attack yourself. So you threaten yourself? What's the point? To state that you can attack with Unconditional Power? Again, manifesting a power is not attacking, so you don't threaten by virtue of manifesting a power. You threaten by virtue of being armed with a power. And if the power arms you, it basically allows you to threaten, not to attack. My argument still stands: how is manifesting a power making an attack as a standard action? Wrong. The word "provokes" appears nowhere in the description of the ability. The opponent doesn't do anything, but the AoO comes the same. You lose, Marcus. Actually, he does do something: he is struck in melee by an ally of yours. And even if we forego this entire idea, how do you eliminate the fact that you need threatened squares to be entitled to AoOs? Or that you still have no control over the action that got you the attack in the first place? You couldn't use the opportunist ability if an ally doesn't strike your opponent in melee any more than you could make a regular AoO against an opponent that doesn't provoke one in a conventional fashion. I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to achieve here. The goal is establishing threat, not finding out what provokes AoOs. The entire argument started off from the idea you guys are spreading that, outside your turn, you can only attack because you can make AoOs. This is a logical impossibility. Can you answer to the question "can I attack" if the only attack available are AoOs? What do you mean by available? AoOs are not "available" unless something triggers them. Characters have a built-in limit on the number of AoOs they can make every round, but this doesn't make them any more available. How can you prove that you have AoOs available? A 16th-level fighter can make up to 4 attacks during a full attack, but those attacks will not be available unless he's making a full attack. Similarly, a character can make up to one AoO per round, but the AoO isn't available unless it's triggered. Whatever you might mean, if you have the ability to make AoOs, by extension, you have the ability to attack. The fact that you need threatened squares to perform AoOs serves as proof. In any case, there's no such thing as being restricted to only AoOs. Even the RotG articles indicate that you must be able to take standard action to attack in order to get to make AoOs. The CustServ is one of the most unreliable source of the planet in the D&D world. Not to mention that you were the first to say that you don't want to be compared or cited within Leilond. And Leilond stated the same thing for you.(do you remember the silly "stunned do threaten?" yeah, that's the reason) 1) What would be the point of having CustServ, then? These guys are far more official than you and me. And telling them they're wrong without proving it (such as by providing an equally official or more official statement to the contrary) serves no purpose. If you think CustServ is wrong on this one, send a similar question to them and see if the answer is different. Or send it to the Sage. Or wait until the next rules revisions/corrections/clarifications. Don't just tell people they're wrong because they're CustServ. They're here to help. 2) I don't like when people try to assume that my views coincide with anothers in the hopes of forming a rebuttal against myself or another. This doesn't prevent me from actually telling another that he did good, and Leilond did.
Blackstorm_SK 07-05-07, 08:40 PM	No, it doesn't. What provokes the attack of opportunity from the Opportunist ability? It's your opponent being hit in melee by an ally. The question you need to ask yourself is simple: what happened that caused the Opportunist rogue to get his attack of opportunity? Sorry, being hitted is someone that my opponent are doing? So if I'm being hitted I'm doing something? It's a little twisted, you know. Very well. For you to be entitled to an AoO against an opponent, you must have threatened squares. This is evidenced by the fact that only two kinds of actions can provoke AoOs (PHB137): 1) Moving out of a threatened square 2) Performing a distracting act while in a threatened square In both cases, your opponent must be on a threatened square. In order for you to have a threatened square, you must be able to attack, as you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action. So attack is a requisite for threaten. That's the entire point. If you need to cast a spell to threaten, it's like saying you need to cast a spell to attack. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm simply telling you: imagine you were given an armed standard melee attack all the time. If you can make the attack, you threaten. Are you aware of the fact that this is not "as if it were my turn", nor "as if I constantly have a standard action", but it is "if I have a standard attack"? We're really very far from your starting definition. While I'll certainly agree that you are capable of making attacks of opportunity regardless of whether one is provoked or not, Ok, so it doesn't matter if someone provokes they, cause I'm able to make AoOs, thus they don't require an activation. you'll never actually make it without the provocation. Similarly, while you're always capable of making attacks regardless of whether you'll have an action to do so or not, you'll never actually make it without having the action to do it. If it's not your turn you actually don't have the action to do it. And while I stick by my claim that surprised characters can't act on the surprise round, it is only a minor point and will only establish that unaware characters threaten during the surprise round. Yeah, during a round in wich they cannot make any sort of attacks. It's a simple idea people: okay, your turn is over. Imagine I gave you a single standard melee attack (as in the attack action, under standard actions). Can you make an armed melee attack with it right now? Yeah? Well you threaten. Ignoring the fact the if I effectively would have this standard attack I could change the conditions? Wow, thi is even less of melee attack, and even less of an armed melee attack. It's a thing that doesn't even exist, BtR. The entire idea of being able to threaten, even when it's not your action, implies that you threaten as if you had the action to attack, and nothing else. No, because if I have the action to attack, I could change the conditions casting a quickened spell, but you've said that I can't and thi is even less than an action to attack. You're not just attacking when you're casting a spell. You're just attacking when you're using a standard action attack. So I cannot deliver a touch spell in the same round I'm casting it? Actually, he does do something: he is struck in melee by an ally of yours. Do you really don't think that this is a little twisted reasoning? You mean that the character is guilty of being hitted... But thinking to a combat, I imagine that a person make all what is in his power to avoid being hitted, not to being hitted. Unless is masochist. And even if we forego this entire idea, how do you eliminate the fact that you need threatened squares to be entitled to AoOs? Never eliminated it. You couldn't use the opportunist ability if an ally doesn't strike your opponent in melee any more than you could make a regular AoO against an opponent that doesn't provoke one in a conventional fashion. You've asked to show a single instance in what the creature doesn't provoke an AoO. I've did. The entire argument started off from the idea you guys are spreading that, outside your turn, you can only attack because you can make AoOs. This is a logical impossibility. there are a lot of situation in wich your only kind of attacks allowed out of your turn are the AoOs, I think you're agreed, when we talking of a played combat, right? Whatever you might mean, if you have the ability to make AoOs, by extension, you have the ability to attack. The fact that you need threatened squares to perform AoOs serves as proof. So threaten is a requisite for the attack? And here, you are dissociating attacking to deliver a touch spell from the act of casting the spell. Thus, anything that would enable you to cast the spell wouldn't necessarily enable you to deliver the touch. You can't have this in one way and not in the other. Either the touch attack is part of the spellcasting and you provoke AoOs for attempting the touch, or the touch isn't part of the spellcasting (it is effectively a nonaction included in the act of spellcasting) and is governed by its own rules (in this case, you couldn't deliver an unconditional touch power since manifesting the power and delivering the touch are two separate things). Sorry, but deliver a touch spell as part of casting is a thing, hold the charge for deliver it later is another thing. Because, by the RaW, deliver a spell as part of casting is part of casting, as rules says, but deliver the spell some rounds later because you've holded the charge is a standard attack. Really? Where is your ability to attack negated outside your turn? Where the rules states that you cannot, unless you readying an action or have a spell that allow it to you, makes a full round/standard attack if it's not your turn. And even if it were limited to certain types of attacks, how does being limited in specifics limit you in general. If I tell my player's wizard: you can't cast magic missile, does this mean he can't cast spells at all? This is why I check the AoOs. As a final blow to the entire AoO issue, where is it stated that AoOs are the only form of attack you can make outside your turn? Nowhere. So? I'm speaking of a situation in wich you have no other way than AoOs to attack. Just like I find it difficult to make AoOs without someone provoking it. If you were to account for only the opportunities present to attack, you would never threaten any squares unless you were acting. This is explicitly not the case, as creatures threaten even when they're not acting. a sleeping creature are not acting. The entire opposing argument is based around what "can make an attack" means. If you're talking about actually having a chance to perform an attack, then you would only threaten on your action. This makes no sense. The easiest way to see if you "can make an attack" is to see if it's possible if you were given a chance to do it. Out of my turn, the chance is given by the AoOs. While it may often occur that you have no other means of attacking outside your turn, you're by no means restricted to only this type of attack. If one of these situation occurs, if you can't do it, out of your turn, you are effectively prevented from making any kind of attack. Where is it stated that until your first turn comes up in the first round of combat, you cannot act? You can act if your turn as yet to come? Does this mean that, until your first turn comes up, you lose the ability to attack? Uh... Not exactly. It means that in the first round you're flat footed. If so, how do you justify being able to make AoOs during this time through Combat Reflexes? That since you have combat reflexes you can make AoOs even when your flat footed. The feat only states that you regain the ability to make AoOs while being flat-footed. No "you regain", but "you can". By your logic, this wouldn't enable the character to make AoOs before his first turn comes up because he can't act until his first initiative comes up. Why? Not having acted yet is not equivalent of not being able to act. Correct. But you've contraddicted yourself while you've replied to Egres, on this point. I'm not arguing about what you can do with a standard action. I'm telling you that you need to assume that the only action you could take is a standard attack. Nothing else. You can't interpret having an opportunity to cast a spell as being the same as having an opportunity to attack, even if the spell incorporates an attack. If I can make a standard attack I have a standard action. If I have a standard action, nothing in the rules prevent me form acasting a quickened spell, if I met the conditions. If you start doing so, then you could start arguing that slowed characters threaten everything within their charging range, simply because they could attack those people using a certain type of standard action. Uh? A charge allow you to move until twice your movement, then make a single melee attack. Doesn't say that you can attack someone during the charge. And even for the slowed charachter, the charge (I think it's called partial charge) doesn't state this, AFAIK. Forget other action types. Just consider the standard attack. If you were given one now, could you make it? If so, you threaten. So attack is a requisite for threat. The founding principle behind this idea is to determine threat as if you had a chance to attack right now. Even if I don't have the chance to do? Here's why. Let's say you're unarmed. You have the Quick-Draw feat. An opponent moves next to you and starts casting a spell. Can you make an AoO against the opponent? No, because you don't have a weapon in hand, and if you were given a chance to make an armed melee attack now, you couldn't take it. If you were given a chance to take a standard action, you'd have to do something else with that action before being allowed to attack. If you cast a quickened vampiric touch, you'd have to cast the spell before being able to deliver the touch. Right. So it's not absolutely as if I have a standard attack available. He shoots; he scores! Wow. A balancing character threaten? The question is. During your turn can you attack while paralized? If you remove the paralysis you won't be paralized, that isn't the reply to the question. The question is: can you attack during your turn in paralized condition? No. So? It's not my turn. So your quesiton is pointless. I'm not interesting that you say that in your opinion the rules says that it doesn't matter if it's my turn or not. I'm interested in the fact that you ask me what if it would be my turn, but effectively it's not my turn, so why I must care of what if it were my turn if it's not? Again NO. Casting the spell is one thing, delivering the attack is another. Casting the spell isn't an attack, only the touch spell is an attack You do not cast "harm on someone", you cast harm and then deliver the attack to someone Sure... In the same standard action. I can do it. If you run out of attack you cannot attack so if you run out of attack in your turn, you cannot attack, so you don't threaten, if your enemy has cover and you don't have SS spell or such, yeah? Melee attack? Uhm... psionic fly, UP, i use myself as a club. Is not a melee attack? [quote="Blackstorm"]So you're saying that I must threaten to make a single melee attack. Exactly. [...] So I showed you that you don't need to threaten to attack. You can attack without threatening. This mean that the bolded sentence is wrong, I never said that Interesting. Tell me a condition that prevent me to use a readied action and I will respond you showing how my understanding of the rules work Ok, you decide to not readying an action. So when your turn end, you cannot use the radied action. this is what I'm saying when I speak of you don't have readied an action. If for any reason being able to attack during opponent turn matter at all (and I think it isn't necessary), if the condition I'm in doesn't prevent me from ready an action, I can ready it, no matter if I did or I didn't, I can Never siad that. I'm saying that if you didn't ready it, you cannot use it, not that you can't ready it (anyway I like to know how I can ready an action out of my turn). Sorry... I'm not sure I understood your question. For threatening pourpose, if the condition doesn't prevent you from acting you're considered active and threatening If I'm not in my turn, I must check the threat as if it were my turn, but w/o considering all the stuff that I can do during my turn except attack? In my understanding it doesn't matter if you run out of attacks, so I agree with you so it doesn't matter if you run out of AoOs. Straight. But in your understanding if you run out of attack you cannot attack. Never, never,never, never said that. Never. You're still able to attack. But "out of my turn" isn't a matter at all, because the rules say to ignore that. When when you ask me to use your interpretation I do it, and when I ask you the same you don't do it? If the condition doesn't remove your "ability to attack" during your turn, it doesn't remove the "ability to attack" at all. It can remove the ability to deliver an AoO It's a really really ambiguos sentence. Explain it better, please, otherwise, with this wording it can be seriously misunderstooded. If you run out of AoO you are prevented from making AoOs, how can you threaten in your interpretation? where I'm saying that running out of attacks is like have the attacks prevented? And how can you threaten in your understanding of the rules if you've not any way to attack? You're still able to do so. Just like a character that has used yet his full round attack is still threatening. If you cast quickened you change the condition. The question is to attkack in THIS condition, not attacking after removing it you ask me to consider if it were my turn, then I can't do the consideration that I would do if it were my turn? Machiavelli was a dumb, confronted to you. But the rules don't say that, you need to be able to deliver a form of melee attack, regardless of the turn. Ok. Spectral hand already caste. If I'm paralized I can deliver a touch attack still silent spell, w/ Eschew materials. And it's a melee attack. So, if the condition do not prevent any form of melee attack, standard action attack and AoO, you're considered able to attack Even full round attack, and even free actions attacks. If you cannot make AoO you can't at all. Why? Thus, in your undestanding of the rules, how can you threaten? What part of "if I run out of attack I still threaten, since runnig out of attack is not the same of are prevented from attack" isn't clear? In mine you still threaten because the "can attack" as the meaning of "general ability", like "can speak english", while in your understanding you require to pratically being able to deliver an attack NOW Ehr... this is because none of us have the time machine, yeah. I think that this word, "practically" is not in the right place... for real, it wouldn't even be in this phrase How can you threaten in your undestanding while you run out of attack if you haven't any other way to attack? You cannot attack but you threaten. How can you justify this? What part of "just as a character that has runned out of attacks in his turn still threaten" isn't clear to you? Sorry? You cannot but you're considered as you can? Why? I cannot understand that What part of "If it were as you say I can also state this" is not clear? Common sense Sure! I can swing and kill you... Isn't that a threaten? you can kill me throught a slit in a wall even if I can take a quick step aside to get total cover? I think it's hard. Totally ininfluent. IF you're paralized and you find a way in the rules to cast a spell but the spell require you to deliver a touch attack you can't do it, the paralized condition must be removed first I'm paralyzed. I cast myself a silent still fly spell. Then i cast a silent still vampyr touch. With the fly spell I can fly even if I'm paralized, so I can deliver the spell. So? The issue wasn't that. The question is: can you attack while paralized during your turn? If you "remove the paraysis" you're not attacking "while paralized" If it's not my turn the issue is not what I can do during my turn. But you have to respond the question: can I attack while paralized during my turn? If you remove the paralysis you're not attackin "while paralized" I've showed that I can do it. Anyway, if the turn doesn't matter, why you still insist to ask me what if during my turn? It doesn't matter. Autocontraddiction? If you cast HARM without delivering the attack you're not attacking yet, so you don't terminate the effect of the spell, because casting HARM isn't attacking itself Casting Harm is an attack if as a part of casting I deliver the spell, since I can deliver it as part of casting The ability to attack is a prerequisite for threatening. Threateing is a prerequisite for AoOs an AoO is an attack, so they're requisite of each other. P.S. As side note. I contacted the customer service. They're replies aren't "official rules", so if you don't like them you can freely ignore this, but some user can find interesting This is the mail Really. Interesting. - Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you are flat-footed because you're balancing on a slippery surface? Yes This means that a balancing creature threaten? The tricky part about flanking is that it specifies that you must be opposite an ally who threatens a square, not one that is capable of making attacks of opportunity. The tricky part is that the cust service didn't replied to the main question: I threaten in all this cases? Try to ask if a balancing creature threaten during your turn. Threatening does not necessarily require you to be able to make an attack of opportunity, but means you must be able to attack them. Yeah, they never said "as if it were your turn".
Marcus Majarra 07-06-07, 03:02 AM	Sorry, being hitted is someone that my opponent are doing? So if I'm being hitted I'm doing something? It's a little twisted, you know. Whether the opponent provokes the attack or not is irrelevant. The point is that you have no control over when the attack is actually available to you, as is the case with all attacks of opportunity. Are you aware of the fact that this is not "as if it were my turn", nor "as if I constantly have a standard action", but it is "if I have a standard attack"? We're really very far from your starting definition. And this is fine. The discussion is helping establish a much more concise definition than what I started with. It's called being flexible. The only way I can see my initial definition evolving even further would be to state the following: "You threaten squares as long as, if you were given an action to make an armed melee attack (and only an armed melee attack), you could actually make this attack." Here's more elaboration on the subject, separated into individual statements: 1) I'm assuming your claims are true and consider that nonactions are also actions. 2) All melee attacks are actions. The more common "regular attack" is a standard action, AoOs are nonactions, delivering a touch spell is a nonaction that's part of casting a touch spell, and so on. 3) To make melee attacks, you must be able to act (since melee attacks are actions). 4) When you're making a melee attack, it's your action (since melee attacks are actions). 5) You will never make a melee attack when it's not your action (since, if you're making a melee attack, you're also acting). 6) You are entitled to some actions periodically, whereas your access to other actions is beyond your control. For example, when your initiative turn comes up each round, you're entitled a standard action, a move action (or a full-round action in lieu of both), plus any number of free actions. These are periodical. When an opponent takes an action that provokes AoOs (something that occurs beyond your control), you're entitled an AoO (a kind of nonaction). 7) Having an action available to you represents an opportunity to do something. You can choose to forego this opportunity. 8) Having an opportunity to do something and being capable of doing something are not equivalent. For example, if you have a standard action available to you, you have the opportunity to cast a spell with a casting time of one standard action. However, if you have no spellcasting ability, you cannot actually use the standard action to cast the spell. 9) Since not having the opportunity to do something and being able to do something are two separate things, the best way to see if you're capable of doing something is to see if you could actually do it, if you were given an opportunity to do so. 10) The best way to see if you're capable of making an armed melee attack is to see if you could actually do it, if you were given an opportunity to make an armed melee attack. 11) Since you threaten squares into which you can make armed melee attacks, the best way to see if you threaten a square is to see if you could actually make an armed melee attack into that square, if you were given an opportunity to do make an armed melee attack. Does the reasoning seem any clearer? Ok, so it doesn't matter if someone provokes they, cause I'm able to make AoOs, thus they don't require an activation. In here, you're showing how being capable of performing AoOs implicitly involves that you already have threatened squares, regardless of whether AoOs actually take place. This is all good. What you haven't demonstrated is how being incapable of performing AoOs involves that you no longer have threatened squares. You're saying that the ability to perform a certain action is independent from that action's activation. That's quite fine. Where is your ability to attack as a whole actually restricted for you? If we go by the logic you're presenting (which is fine, at this point), then the ability to attack is independent from the attack's activation. Thus, you don't need to activate an attack in order to be capable of attacking. When you're not on your turn, you can't activate a standard attack. Similarly, when nothing triggers an AoO, you can't activate the AoO. But since not being able to activate AoOs doesn't render you incapable of performing AoOs, how does not being able to activate standard attacks render you incapable of performing standard attacks? The thing is: not being able to activate a standard attack doesn't render you incapable of making standard attacks. This is why, by default, you'll always threaten when armed and within reach, unless something actually makes you incapable of making standard attacks, or, more precisely, unless something makes you incapable of making any kind of armed melee attack. Things that make you incapable of making any kind of armed melee attack include the nauseated condition (since this condition makes you unable to attack) and the stunned condition (since this condition makes you unable to act). Yeah, during a round in wich they cannot make any sort of attacks. The only way this is true is if during this round, they cannot make any actions. Which is what I've been saying. As you stated yourself, the activation doesn't matter. Only the ability to does. And the only thing lacking for you during the first round of combat, before your initiative comes up, is the activation. Ignoring the fact the if I effectively would have this standard attack I could change the conditions? Wow, thi is even less of melee attack, and even less of an armed melee attack. It's a thing that doesn't even exist, BtR. Except that the idea is not to give you a chance to change the conditions. It's a chance to make a standard attack, and only that. You want to see if you're capable of attacking, not of changing the conditions in your favor. No, because if I have the action to attack, I could change the conditions casting a quickened spell, but you've said that I can't and thi is even less than an action to attack. You're confusing being granted a single attack with being granted a standard action to do whatever you want. Here's an intuitive example: you tell me that you can jump 2.0m into the air. In order for you to prove it, I give you a chance to do it right now. The thing is, you can only make this high jump with your special running shoes, which you have yet to wear. So, instead of jumping right away, you change your shoes and then jump. The thing is: you told me you could make the jump when you were not wearing your special shoes. You haven't proved that you can make the high jump under the initial conditions; you only showed that you could do it with the special shoes. How does this relate to our D&D context? You're unarmed and you tell me that you can make an armed melee attack. In order for you to prove it, I give you an opportunity to make an armed melee attack right now. The thing is, you can only make the armed melee attack after casting your quickened vampiric touch, which isn't yet cast. So instead of attacking right away, you cast the spell and then attack. You haven't proved you could attack under the initial conditions; you only proved you could do it with your spell. The entire idea of ascertaining threat at any point in time is to determine threat under the conditions in that point in time. If you arbitrarily change the conditions, then you're not proving you threaten at that point in time. And if you want to take the first round of combat into context, you can simply assume that you remain flat-footed until your first initiative count. Before then, the only condition affecting you is being flat-footed. To see if you can threaten before your first initiative count, I'm giving you a hypothetical chance to attack at any point in time before your turn comes up. What conditions are affecting you? You're flat-footed, but being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from making attacks. Thus, if you're armed and within reach, you could very well take that chance and make the attack. This sort of reasoning can be applied to any sort of action at any point in time. Let's say you want to know if you can make AoOs at any given point in time. We're before your first initiative and you want to know if you can execute AoOs. So I tell you: I give you a hypothetical chance to perform an AoO right now. What condition is affecting you? You're flat-footed; flat-footed characters cannot execute AoOs. The end result? You cannot execute AoOs at this point in time. So I cannot deliver a touch spell in the same round I'm casting it? That's not the issue. We're not trying to see if you're capable of casting and delivering a touch spell. We're trying to find out if you're capable of attacking. It stands to logic that you'd only concentrate on the ability to make an attack. Do you really don't think that this is a little twisted reasoning? You mean that the character is guilty of being hitted... But thinking to a combat, I imagine that a person make all what is in his power to avoid being hitted, not to being hitted. Unless is masochist. Well, the entire idea of what the opponent's intent is of little consequence. The point here was that the AoO is not activated by you, not that it really matters. You've asked to show a single instance in what the creature doesn't provoke an AoO. I've did. So you did. What you didn't do, however, is show that AoOs can't exist outside of some triggering context. Even with the Opportunist ability, something has to happen for you to get to actually make AoOs. Sorry, but deliver a touch spell as part of casting is a thing, hold the charge for deliver it later is another thing. Because, by the RaW, deliver a spell as part of casting is part of casting, as rules says, but deliver the spell some rounds later because you've holded the charge is a standard attack. So basically, a wizard casting chill touch, moving into melee range of an opponent, and delivering the touch provokes an AoO from the opponent, if he does it in the same round? If you state that delivering the touch is part of casting the spell, and casting a spell provokes AoOs, then delivering the touch as part of casting will provoke AoOs. It's an interesting tangent to explore, and I'm curious as to what you think. Where the rules states that you cannot, unless you readying an action or have a spell that allow it to you, makes a full round/standard attack if it's not your turn. Care to provide me a nifty d20srd.org quote? Or a PHB page reference for this (if you have an English copy; I don't read Italian, so I couldn't verify this on an Italian copy)? It's a hefty claim to say that you can't attack in a given context without proving this. I very much doubt that you can find any such proof. The rules state that you're entitled to standard/full attacks on your turn (and readied attacks when triggered), but they remain pretty much silent on what happens outside your turn. This is why I check the AoOs. Except that AoOs are only one kind of attack. You can't generalize rules applying to one kind of attack to all kinds of attacks. If a rule affects only AoOs, then treat the effects only for AoOs, not for any other sort of attack. Nowhere. So? I'm speaking of a situation in wich you have no other way than AoOs to attack. This situation exists only when you're actually given a chance to perform an AoO. The is the only situation in which the only way for you to attack is to make an AoO when an AoO is actually triggered. At this point, you get a single nonaction, and that action is an AoO. You're mistakingly concluding that outside your turn, your only way to attack is to make AoOs. You're conveniently disallowing for every other mechanism that would activate an out-of-turn attack, in order to justify your claim, but not mechanisms that activate AoOs. Why is this? AoOs will only exist when activated, just like the attack from a snake's swiftness spell will only exist when the spell is cast. Where do you see a difference? a sleeping creature are not acting. A sleeping creature cannot act. By extension, it also cannot attack (and thus, it doesn't threaten). No "you regain", but "you can". Does your attention to detail help you here? While flat-footed a creature cannot make AoOs. Combat Reflexes only removes this restriction. What's the point? Why? You're stating that before your first initiative comes up you can't act (and thus, cannot attack). This is not a result of being flat-footed, as being flat-footed doesn't prevent you from acting. Combat Reflexes only allows you to make AoOs that you would otherwise be denied by virtue of being flat-footed, not to make AoOs in any kind of context while you're flat-footed. Thus, while the feat removes the restriction on AoOs while flat-footed, you still can't act until your first initiative comes up. And since you can't act, you cannot attack in any way, since all attacks are actions, even AoOs. The end result: even with Combat Reflexes, you can't make AoOs until your first initiative comes up. The is all from the idea that you cannot act until your first initiative comes up. This has no basis in fact; there's simply no evidence in the rules that state that you cannot act until your first initiative. The thing is, certain actions activate for you on your initiative. Does this mean that no actions can activate for you outside your initiative? Of course not. Whether it's the first one or not doesn't change anything other than anything that's affected by virtue of being flat-footed, which is the only condition affecting you at the beginning of combat. Attacks, in general, are not affected by being flat-footed. Correct. But you've contraddicted yourself while you've replied to Egres, on this point. I've written so much, I can't really ascertain to what you're referring. Could you please provide a quote? If I can make a standard attack I have a standard action. If I have a standard action, nothing in the rules prevent me form acasting a quickened spell, if I met the conditions. You're missing the point. It's not about what you can do with a standard action; it's about you can do with a standard attack. If you were given a standard attack right now, what could you do with it? If making an armed melee attack is one of your possible answers, then by all means you threaten. What you're stating is like saying you could make orange juice if I gave you an apple, simply because an apple is a fruit, and you could make orange juice with a certain type of fruit. Uh? A charge allow you to move until twice your movement, then make a single melee attack. Doesn't say that you can attack someone during the charge. And even for the slowed charachter, the charge (I think it's called partial charge) doesn't state this, AFAIK. I wasn't sufficiently clear on this. I meant that you would threaten any target against whom you could charge, going by the kind of logic you're using in which you're arbitrarily changing the current conditions. Even if I don't have the chance to do? Exactly. How else would you show you can do something if you don't have a chance to do it? The thing is, when you're not acting, you're not attacking. So you can't really prove you can attack when you're not acting. The only way to prove you can attack is to see if you could attack if you were acting. Right. So it's not absolutely as if I have a standard attack available. I'm not sure what you mean. If you don't like the idea of the standard attack, then just imagine you were given a chance to make an attack as a nonaction. As long as the only action you're considering is making an armed melee attack, you're in the game (since threat requires exactly that). You have to forego any actions aren't making an armed melee attack: casting a touch spell is not making an armed melee attack; charging is not making an armed melee attack either. Wow. A balancing character threaten? Very much so. Do you provide flanking bonus to your allies if you are flat-footed because you're balancing on a slippery surface? Yes This means that a balancing creature threaten? Well yes. PHB153 states that "when making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner." The only way for you to provide that flanking bonus is for you to be threatening the opponent. This means that, if balancing characters can provide a flanking bonus, they also threaten.
Leilond 07-06-07, 03:45 AM	So attack is a requisite for threaten. As general ability. And you are considered "able to attack" if the condition you're in doesn't prevent you from attack regardless the moment you apply it For instance. Is there a way to attack an enemy under cover? Yes, I can attack him with a standard action during my turn, thus I threaten him in ANY MOMENT For instance. There's a way to attack an enemy while paralized? No, I do not threaten So I cannot deliver a touch spell in the same round I'm casting it? If something preven you from attacking you can't. If you're paralized and you find a way to cast a "touch spell" you cannot deliver the touch until paralization isn't removed. So threaten is a requisite for the attack? No. Attacking is a prerequisite for threatening. This mean that if you threaten you need to be able to attack FIRST. You can be able to attack without threatening (unarmed), but you cannot threaten without being able to attack a sleeping creature are not acting. And cannot act until they're waked up The fact that I didn't acted yet doesn't mean "I cannot act". This isn't written anywhere in the rules. To be prevented from acting you've to be in a condition that say it explicity Sleeping creature cannot act, flat-footed creatures didn't acted yet but can act Out of my turn, the chance is given by the AoOs. 1) You don't need the chance, only the general ability to attack (my understanding) 2) If you run out of AoO you cannot have any chance (your understanding) You can act if your turn as yet to come? It isn't important to have "the opportunity" to do so, only to not being forbitten. For instance, you cannot do any AoO if nothing give you the opportunity to make one, this doesn't make you "unable to do it". You can make AoO but you won't because nothing give you the opportunity You can always act unless otherwise stated (unaware during surprise round, paralized) You can always attack unless otherwise stated (nauseated) Being unable to make AoOs doesn't mean "being unable to attack". You can still attack. You'll say "not during your opponent turn". I will respond, it doesn't matter, for the threatening issue the only things that matter is being able as "general ability" Uh... Not exactly. It means that in the first round you're flat footed. And nowhere it is written that a flat-footed character cannot act or cannot attack Even if I don't have the chance to do? Exactly. You run out of AoO, so you cannot attack your opponent but you still threaten your enemy It doesn't mattere the "chance" to do something, only the general ability to do that No. So? It's not my turn. So your quesiton is pointless. I'm not interesting that you say that in your opinion the rules says that it doesn't matter if it's my turn or not. I'm interested in the fact that you ask me what if it would be my turn, but effectively it's not my turn, so why I must care of what if it were my turn if it's not? Well. If you're not interested to see how the rules can work in our interpretation without any contraddiction why you ask explanation at all? If you won't respond to my question let me know, I will stop to respond yours Sure... In the same standard action. I can do it. Sure, but they're still two different part of the action. They're so different that you can do them separately. You can (in the same round), cast the spell, move and then touch o if you run out of attack in your turn, you cannot attack, so you don't threaten, if your enemy has cover and you don't have SS spell or such, yeah? Following your understanding of the rules this is the natural consequence Uhm... psionic fly, UP, i use myself as a club. Is not a melee attack? No. The rules do not cover "make a roll to hit when you try to fall down on your opponent". It isn't a melee attack, no Ok, you decide to not readying an action. So when your turn end, you cannot use the radied action. this is what I'm saying when I speak of you don't have readied an action. Deciding to not take an action doesn't make me unable to do it. Does deciding to not attack (to drink a potion) make you unable to attack? Never siad that. I'm saying that if you didn't ready it, you cannot use it, not that you can't ready it (anyway I like to know how I can ready an action out of my turn). And there's no need to being able to make something during your turn to be able to do something as general ability The same reasoning can be applied to AoO. If you run out of AoO you cannot use them so you stop threatening when you run out (in your understanding) If I'm not in my turn, I must check the threat as if it were my turn, but w/o considering all the stuff that I can do during my turn except attack? Why all this complication. You only need to respond to this simple question. Can you attack in your turn while paralized? Do you understand the sentence "while paralized"? If you find a way to attack without first removing the paralisys let me know, and I will tell you if you threaten or not so it doesn't matter if you run out of AoOs. Straight. In my understanding AoO aren't an issue at all. So you can run out of them, you can be prevented to do them or whatever you want, you still threaten But in your understanding if you run out of AoO you have no way to attack your opponent so you stop threatening Never, never,never, never said that. Never. You're still able to attack. So you cannot attack but you can attack. And you think this sounds logical. It's a really really ambiguos sentence. Explain it better, please, otherwise, with this wording it can be seriously misunderstooded. Sorry, I cannot explain it better. If a condition doesn't remove the ability to attack during my turn I threaten. where I'm saying that running out of attacks is like have the attacks prevented? Let me know. How can you attack your opponent during his turn if you run out of AoO You can't. How can you threaten (in your understanding) an opponent that you've no way to attack? You're still able to do so. Just like a character that has used yet his full round attack is still threatening. So, you cannot attack but you can attack. Well, it sounds a bit illogical, and not so different from my reasoning, only applied on a different part you ask me to consider if it were my turn, then I can't do the consideration that I would do if it were my turn? Machiavelli was a dumb, confronted to you. Don't play dumb please. We're discussiong, if I recognize that you didn't understand the interest and the meaning of a question (because I bad wrote), I clarify you If you don't want to discuss, but only find a way to discredit me or my question instend of reply, let me know I ask. Can you attack in your turn while in this condition? If "yes" then you threaten Ok. Spectral hand already caste. If I'm paralized I can deliver a touch attack still silent spell, w/ Eschew materials. And it's a melee attack Don't play dumb again. You know the interest of this discussion You can't deliver any touch while paralized. You do not threaten, pheraps your spectral hand threaten (if spectral hand threaten at all), but surely you cannot attack [quote] Even full round attack, and even free actions attacks. Ok, but if you're paralized you cannot deliver any melee attack What part of "if I run out of attack I still threaten, since runnig out of attack is not the same of are prevented from attack" isn't clear? The part that mean "you have no way to attack your opponent but for the issue of threatening you can attack" If you run out of AoO you cannot attack your opponent, but you consider as you can. This is arbitrary assumption that has no rule justification. I can accept it as "your understanding" but you have no proof it's the right one What part of "just as a character that has runned out of attacks in his turn still threaten" isn't clear to you? The part that didn't justify why. What part of "If it were as you say I can also state this" is not clear? Exaclty. As you see you arrive to the point to say "I'm right because I think so", because there aren't evidence that you're right. you can kill me throught a slit in a wall even if I can take a quick step aside to get total cover? I think it's hard. Common sense If you want me to be no more a threaten take that step. Until I see you I can swing and kill you. Yes, threatening I'm paralyzed. I cast myself a silent still fly spell. Then i cast a silent still vampyr touch. With the fly spell I can fly even if I'm paralized, so I can deliver the spell. So? You cannot deliver the spell at all. The touch require an attack and you cannot attack while paralized. You can fly with vampiric touch "charged", but by the RAW you cannot deliver it until you're paralized. And more: you cannot move! You have fly casted but while you're paralized you cannot use the move action you need to move, so you cannot fly anywhere. But if you find a way t move, you still cannot make the attack roll you need to deliver the touch until you're paralized If it's not my turn the issue is not what I can do during my turn. Sorry, I thought you where interested in a discusison I've showed that I can do it. No, you didn't. Anyway, if the turn doesn't matter, why you still insist to ask me what if during my turn? It doesn't matter. Autocontraddiction? Because I would like to explain better the working of the rule. Because if "the turns doesn't matter" I can use any of the turn option to find the answer to the question "Can I attack?". But if you're not interested anymore in the discussion, let me know Casting Harm is an attack if as a part of casting I deliver the spell, since I can deliver it as part of casting If you deliver the effect you're attacking, if you don't deliver the effect you're not attacking. As you say you can deliver the attack as part of casting, but you can also not do it. If you don't deliver the touch, your casting isn't an attack. So, casting the spell isn't attacking itself if you, for instance, chose to hold the charge. And while you're paralized you CANNOT attack, so you cannot deliver the touch so you must hold the charge an AoO is an attack, so they're requisite of each other. Absolutely not. AoO is a paritcular type of melee attack. You can be able to attack without being able to make AoO (as showed). This alone demostrate that something that let you attack do not automaticaly let you make AoO, that means AoO aren't "normal attacks". If fact the rules, after saying "AoO are melee attacks" continue with a long long chapter to define what an AoO is and when can be made By the way, if you like so much RAW, you cannot say that two things are "requisite to eachother". It's impossible For instance. A is requisite for B, and B is requisite for A So you cannot take A until you don't have B, but you cannot take B until you cannot take A, so you will never have A nor B The tricky part is that the cust service didn't replied to the main question: I threaten in all this cases? Try to ask if a balancing creature threaten during your turn. You have to read the replies better Do you provide flanking bonus... Do you know in the RAW how can you provide flanking bonus? Do you know that threatening is the only way to provide flanking bonus? And more, contact them by yourself
thondar 07-07-07, 11:48 AM	1) A stunned creature threaten for you? Why? 2) A stunned creature having UP threaten for you? Why? 3) A stunned creature using UP can attack himself? Why? 4) A stunned creature using UP to attack threaten for you? Why? 5) I’m stunned. I use UP to manifest a power that allow to attack. I sunder my shield. You make un AoO and sunder my weapon. Can I do an AoO? why? Anyway UP is a special circumstance rule relatively to stunned creature. So it introduce an exception to the stunned condition. So if it give threat (but it don't give threat) it will be a exception to rule.
thondar 07-07-07, 12:24 PM	I’m a alone 1°liv fighter with a longsword. I have only combat reflex. I use my standard action to attack with my longsword. There’s two goblin: A & B. The goblin A is in a square near. The goblin B is 10’ afar. Can I attack goblin A? yes can I attack goblin B? no because I haven’t reach. Both the goblin (same position) drink a potion. Can I attack goblin A with AoO? yes Can I attack goblin B with AoO? no because I haven’t reach. Now both the goblin are near. Goblin A drink another potion. Goblin B make a full attack. Can I attack goblin A with AoO? yes Can I attack goblin B with AoO? no because he don’t provoke it. Why do you ignore provocation but not reach? Everywhere i look in the rules i don’t find any hinting about it. Reach and provocation always seem to be on the same plane. AoO: a single extra melee attack for round that an combattant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes AoO
Egres 07-11-07, 08:28 AM	Unfortunately all this "you threaten if you have a standard action to attack" is only a theory, your theory, that doesn't mesh well with the rest of the rules. That's why your answer is unsubstantial, no offense meant. In fact, I'm attacking: thus your theory doesn't stand. How doesn't it mesh well with the rules? It doesn't mesh well because if I cast a quickened spell I can attack, and thus I threaten with a tocuh spell. No, it doesn't. What provokes the attack of opportunity from the Opportunist ability? It's your opponent being hit in melee by an ally. Your opponent does nothing to provoke the AoO. Thus, Blackstorm proved you worng. He wins, you lose, Marcus. Concede the point. In order for you to have a threatened square, you must be able to attack, as you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your action. In order to know if you can make a melee attacvk you must know if you can make AoO. As shown before, they are two elements that influence each other. Please, don't fall back ten pages back. That's the entire point. If you need to cast a spell to threaten, it's like saying you need to cast a spell to attack. That's not what I'm suggesting. What you are suggesting is irrelevant if doesn't mesh with the rules. You're telling me you're able to make an attack of opportunity even when it's not provoked? Show me one example in which you're making an unprovoked attack of opportunity. Opportunist. And while I stick by my claim that surprised characters can't act on the surprise round, it is only a minor point and will only establish that unaware characters threaten during the surprise round. They don't get to act. But if you cast SS they can act. Thus, they would threaten thanks to that spell. Before casting the spell, could you make an armed attack? No, you'd have to cast the spell to do it. After casting the spell I threaten. This shows that threatening derives from the ability to make an armed attack in the precise timeframe you ask "Can I attack"? You're not just attacking when you're casting a spell. Actually, since touching my opponents is part of the casting, I'm attacking with a free action. May I underline that you were the first to point this in this thread? Again, manifesting a power is not attacking, so you don't threaten by virtue of manifesting a power. Read above. My argument still stands: how is manifesting a power making an attack as a standard action? your argument has fallen like a sand castle. If you can attack with a quickened vampirict touch, you threaten with a free action. Concede the point: you are the first one that highlighted this point. Actually, he does do something: he is struck in melee by an ally of yours. Please, avoid the nonsense. By your reasoning a paralized creature struck in melee is doing something. Unofortunately the rules say that a paralized creature can't act. The opponent does nothing, but the AoO can be made: thus, AoO don't need to be provoked by your opponent to be made. Concede the point. The goal is establishing threat, not finding out what provokes AoOs. Threat is established if you are able to make, now, an attack. What do you mean by available? AoOs are not "available" unless something triggers them. Actually, if I have AoO available, I can make them if provoked. If I'm falt footed, I'm not able to make AoO: thus, even if provoked, I can't make them. In any case, there's no such thing as being restricted to only AoOs. During your opponent turn that's all you have. 1) What would be the point of having CustServ, then? Don't ask me. The boards are filled of threads where people laugh at them showing their replies that are inconsistent with each other. If you think CustServ is wrong on this one, send a similar question to them and see if the answer is different. Or send it to the Sage. Or wait until the next rules revisions/corrections/clarifications. Don't just tell people they're wrong because they're CustServ. They're here to help. Their answer clash with the FAQ: thus, it's wrong. 2) I don't like when people try to assume that my views coincide with anothers in the hopes of forming a rebuttal against myself or another. This doesn't prevent me from actually telling another that he did good, and Leilond did. That fact that you don't like it is meaningless: it's a fact that you are citing Leilond only when this supports you, and dismissing his posts when you they can't help you. Be honest, at least. The point is that you have no control over when the attack is actually available to you, as is the case with all attacks of opportunity. Slapping Hand, Spell Compendium. Except that AoOs are only one kind of attack. The only available attacks if you have no SS spells or such. You're mistakingly concluding that outside your turn, your only way to attack is to make AoOs. What if this is true? If yuo have no SS spells and such, this is true. You can't deliver any touch while paralized. You do not threaten, pheraps your spectral hand threaten (if spectral hand threaten at all), but surely you cannot attack Wrong. You attack with the spectral hand, and you threaten with it. From the FAQ: Attacking with a spectral hand is part of the action of casting the touch spell to be delivered. If the initial touch attack misses, you may make additional attacks with the spectral hand in later rounds using the normal rules for holding the charge of a touch spell Reach and provocation always seem to be on the same plane. And? What's your point?
Leilond 07-11-07, 08:46 AM	You attack with the spectral hand, and you threaten with it. Special rules do not prove general rules. Spectral hand simply let you do things you aren't usually able to do, so it really doesn't matter You threaten the squares into wich your spectral hand can make a melee attack, you don't threaten any square into wich you can make a melee attack, because you cannot do any melee attack by yourself By the way With your interpretation, I do not threaten an enemy under cover At page 141 of the PHB we find this Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.) With your interpretation of the rules, me and my enemy aren't considered engaged in melee except during my turn. So everyone can freely fire to him without the -4 penalty to hit. Another totally inconsistent consequence
Egres 07-11-07, 08:51 AM	Special rules do not prove general rules. I don't see any special rule here. No luck for you. Stop calling everything that proves you wrong "a special rule": you are boring. Try to support your view instead of repeating this silly mantra like a buddha parrot. With your interpretation of the rules, me and my enemy aren't considered engaged in melee except during my turn. Do you know the meaning of the word "either"? My god...
Leilond 07-11-07, 08:56 AM	I don't see any special rule here. No luck for you. Stop calling everything that proves you wrong "a special rule": you are boring. Stop not accepting that citing a spell effect do not let you prove your points, you are boring Try to support your view instead of repeating this silly mantra like a buddha parrot. Do you know the meaning of the word "either"? My god... If there's a 5 feet wall between us, or a wall corner, me and my enemy have cover relative to the other In your interpretation during my allies turns, I don't threaten my enemy and my enemy does not threaten me Thus, all my allies can freely fire to the opponent near me without -4 penalty, because for some strange reason they "haven't to aim carefully to avoid hitting me". But, for another strange reason, if they ready an action to fire an arrow to interrupt that enemy from casting, they will have -4 to hit, because my opponent threaten me during his turn, even if he's casting for example "mage armor" For another strange reason, if my ally ready an action to fire during my turn, he will have -4 to hit even if I simply "drink a potion" and do nothing similar to attacking my opponent Very consistent, sure
Egres 07-11-07, 09:03 AM	Stop not accepting that citing a spell effect do not let you prove your points, you are boring The spell is part of the rule, and proves you wrong. Deal with it, or concede the point. In your interpretation during my allies turns, I don't threaten my enemy and my enemy does not threaten me And? Whats' wrong with that? If you can' attack him, and he can't too, there's no risk ou can interfere with your allies's fire. No inconsistencies here: try again. Tell me Leilond: if I cast a quickened Vampiric Touch, do I threaten with it? But, for another strange reason, if they ready an action to fire an arrow to interrupt that enemy from casting, they will have -4 to hit, because my opponent threaten me during his turn, even if he's casting for example "mage armor" Eh, talking about logic, the one that says that an opponent who can't make any attack on me interfers with my casting ability if has the Mage Slayer feat. He doesn't pose a threat to me, cause he can't attack me, but he "threatens" me. Lol.
Leilond 07-11-07, 09:12 AM	The spell is part of the rule, and proves you wrong. Deal with it, or concede the point. Spells let you do things that you cannot usually do. Deal with it or concede the point And? Whats' wrong with that? If you can' attack him, and he can't too, there's no risk ou can interfere with your allies's fire. No inconsistencies here: try again. In your understanding I cannot attack after drinking a cure light wounds potion, but I still threaten until the end of my turn, and my allies will have -4 to hit during that moment. In your understanding, my opponent cannot attack me after beginning to cast "mage armor" but my allies will have -4 to hit until the end of his turn It's like saying that outside my turn I stay immobile and wait that something else happen, but I can make for example AoO against another enemy that isn't under cover, but for some strange reason my allies have -4 to hit that enemy and not against the first one... both are near me, both are moving, I'm attacking/casting or the like... but you have not "to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend" if you shot at one enemy and you have "to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend" if you shot at the other Now, remembering this rule (page 141 of PHB) Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.) If I have cover relative to my enemy and that enemy have cover relative to me (not total cover) and you want to make a ranged attack to my enemy: - from the beginning of my turn to the end of my turn, you have -4 to hit against my enemy - then you'll stop to have -4 to hit him until the beginning of his turn - at his turn you start again to have -4 to hit, stopping to have that -4 at the end of his turn. No matter of what we do during those moments. You have -4 to ranged hit against my enemy during my turns and his turns, and you don't have any penalty during other creatures turn... like we freeze in place or I disappear and you do not need "to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend" during those moments This is completely inconsistent and illogical. Ok, now I know you won't accept any evidence. I think I demostrated more than enought that your understanding of the rule bring to a totally inconsistence conseguence. You don't think so, we must live with it Tell me Leilond: if I cast a quickened Vampiric Touch, do I threaten with it? It depends. If your condition doesn't prevent you from using a standard action to attack you threaten So, - if you find a way to cast Vampiric Touch while paralized and you have no way to attack except your hand, you don't threaten - if you find a way to cast Vampiric Touch while stunned and you have no way to attack except your hand you don't threaten - If nothing in "the condition you are in" prevent you to use a standard action to attack you threaten all squares in your actual reach, no matter if you can do AoO or not Thus, you've to be more specific about the situation, because the answer can be different from one situation to another Is like asking, if I cast cure light wounds can I cure you? It depends. How far are you from me? Can you walk or are entagled? Am I in an AMF?
Marcus Majarra 07-11-07, 01:03 PM	And here I was hoping the discussion was truly over... *sigh* In order to know if you can make a melee attacvk you must know if you can make AoO. As shown before, they are two elements that influence each other. Please, don't fall back ten pages back. This is a logical impossibility. In order to make attacks, you do not need to be able to make AoOs. And if you want proof, you can look to cover rules. You can't execute AoOs against an enemy with cover relatively to you. Hwoever, attacking that target is still perfectly viable. Simply put: the ability to make attacks influences the ability to make AoOs. The ability to make AoOs does not influence the ability to attack. What you are suggesting is irrelevant if doesn't mesh with the rules. You should explain why my suggestion doesn't coincide with the rules, rather than simply stating it doesn't. Support your points, Egres. They don't get to act. But if you cast SS they can act. Thus, they would threaten thanks to that spell. Actually, you're not thinking this through. If you were to cast snake's swiftness on a stunned character, would he be able to make the attack? No, because the character can't act and the spell doesn't change this fact. If you allow a surprised character to benefit from the spell, you're implying the surprised character still has the ability to act. By extension, having the ability to act also grants you the ability to attack (since all creatures are capable of attacking; barrign a few oddball exceptions). If that's how you want to rule it, it's fine by me, as whether or not you can act when surprised is a somewhat ambiguous point. Keep in mind, however, that if you allow surprised characters to benefit from the spell, they already threaten by virtue of being able to act and attack. After casting the spell I threaten. This shows that threatening derives from the ability to make an armed attack in the precise timeframe you ask "Can I attack"? Exactly. And the only way to answer that question is by actually giving yourself a chance to attack (and just that). Casting a spell is not making an attack, and shouldn't be used as a way to demonstrate that you threaten. Imagine an unarmed wizard during his turn. He has a chill touch spell prepared. If you're saying that casting a touch spell is making an attack, then he'd be armed by virtue of being capable of casting the spell. This makes no sense at all. Casting a spell cannot mean that you're capable of attacking. Actually, since touching my opponents is part of the casting, I'm attacking with a free action. May I underline that you were the first to point this in this thread? Again, casting a spell is not attacking, although attacking might be part of casting the spell. I'm not looking for actions that incorporate attacks. I'm looking for actions that ARE attacks. your argument has fallen like a sand castle. If you can attack with a quickened vampirict touch, you threaten with a free action. This makes no sense. Threat is determined BEFORE you act, under the conditions that affect you before acting. If you need to act to threaten, then you're not already threatening. This is simple logic. Threat is established if you are able to make, now, an attack. EXACTLY! But how are you able to determine if you're able to make an attack now, if you don't have an opportunity to do so? Actually, if I have AoO available, I can make them if provoked. If I'm falt footed, I'm not able to make AoO: thus, even if provoked, I can't make them. What is an "available AoO?" This is where your conclusion is improperly drawn. Characters don't have "available AoOs," as an attack of opportunity only becomes available when the opportunity to attack presents itself. If you want a comparative example, the attack action is only available to you when you have a standard action to perform. Characters have the ability to make AoOs, and they have a built-in limit as to how many they can make, each round. Thus, only when an AoO is provoked from you, you have an AoO available to you. At all other times, you simply have the ability to perform AoOs. Attacking, in general, follows the same kind of you. You have a standard attack available to you when you have a standard action to perform. At all other times, you simply have the ability to attack as a standard action (if not the opportunity). During your opponent turn that's all you have. Again, this is not proven. Their answer clash with the FAQ: thus, it's wrong. And if that were true, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I've just browsed through every instance of the words "threat" and "flank" in the FAQ, and found no entry that clashes with the CustServ response. Again, support your claims with solid proof when making them. That fact that you don't like it is meaningless: it's a fact that you are citing Leilond only when this supports you, and dismissing his posts when you they can't help you. Be honest, at least. I was never dismissing his posts. I was dismissing someone else's post (I think it might have been Blackstorm_SK) that implied that my view coincided with Leilond's, despite having said nothing about the matter myself. This is what I don't like, and it's a valid statement. Shouldn't I be the sole authority in deciding whether I agree with someone or not? Slapping Hand, Spell Compendium. Okay, you did a good job in finding one of the exception cases where you can trigger your own AoOs. If you like I can even find another: an ally and yourself threaten an opponent. You have the opportunist ability and the snake's swiftness spell. You cast the spell on your ally, and he hits the opponent with his attack, thus granting you the AoO. What you'Ve succeeded in doing is finding the exception that confirms the rule. A question still remains: how does this help you? The only available attacks if you have no SS spells or such. This is not true. Without triggering conditions, you don't even have AoOs available to you. The availability of an action is governed by the opportunity to perform this action. The ability to perform it is an entirely different thing. What if this is true? If yuo have no SS spells and such, this is true. That's incorrect. If nothing triggers an AoO from you, then cry as you might, you will not have any AoOs. If you want to solve this issue quickly and in your favor, simply find an instance of the rules in which it's stated that the only way for you attack outside your turn is to make AoOs. The truth of the matter is that you're assuming that this is the case, when there simply exists no evidence to support it (and there's even evidence to contradict it, as shown by CustServ).
Psion_3 07-11-07, 05:57 PM	Summer holidays...I miss you so much. :bigeyes: Honestly, folks...this thread is starting to become a sterile ground. People on both sides are bringing up the same points over and over again. No one else is interested in this thread, and we aren't going to change our mind on this issue. Can I cite the Iron Maiden? "On this battlefield no one wins". May we agree to disagree? If you do, just write "I agree".:)
Leilond 07-11-07, 06:28 PM	I agree
Egres 07-12-07, 03:12 AM	I agree.
eamon 07-12-07, 10:54 AM	Just to summarize: Some people think you threaten those square you can make an attack into now (you must be able to take an AoO) Others think that you threaten those squares which you could strike were it your turn Finally, threatening might means those you could strike on your turn without further preparation (not even swift actions such as casting a quickened spell) Did I miss any interpretations?
Marcus Majarra 07-12-07, 08:07 PM	I agree.
Psion_3 07-13-07, 02:51 AM	Just to summarize: Some people think you threaten those square you can make an attack into now (you must be able to take an AoO) Others think that you threaten those squares which you could strike were it your turn Finally, threatening might means those you could strike on your turn without further preparation (not even swift actions such as casting a quickened spell) Did I miss any interpretations? No. You got'em right.