Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lonewolf 11-03-07, 08:53 PM	Hi there. Assume a Large sized creature with only 5ft reach(lets say a horse) is closing into melee range to another Large creature with 10ft reach(or a medium creature with 10ft reach, doesnt really matter). Does the first creature provoke an AoO from this movement? My first reaction to this situation was: "of course it should" but I was shown another side of the argument that I cannot really invalidate(and Im hoping for help here since I still thinkn that it should provoke an AoO): a b c d 1| |B|B| | 2| |B|B| | 3| | | | | 4| | | | | 5| |A|A| | 6| |A|A| | Creature B moves toward creature A. First it enters squares 3b & 3c, two threatened squares from A. No problem yet. Then creature B moves closer and now occupies squares 3b, 3c, 4b and 4c. The only movement that provokes an AoO is when you leave a threatened square, but creature B didnt leave the squares 3b & 3c since it still occupies those squares. As I said I dont think this kind of reasoning is how this is intended to work, but I just cannot anything in the rules to prove it. I would appreciate any help.
Hsien 11-03-07, 09:17 PM	Actually it does leave it, at leats a portion of it does. One of the problems with takingup more then one square. To use your example, but more accurately reflect what happens you need to subset further. Think in terms of individual squares, rather then as a whole. a b c d 1| |B3|B4| | 2| |B1|B2| | 3| | | | | 4| | | | | 5| |A1|A2| | 6| |A3|A4| | Creature B moves towards Creature A Section B1 & B2 enter squares threatened by Creature A ( 3 a/b); no AoO When sections B1 & B2 leave those threatened squares and enter squares 4 a/b, there would be an AoO. As long as a portion of a creature, if they take up more then one square, enters a threatened square, it will trigger an AoO if that portion of the monster leaves that square. I think the Rules Compendium addresses that, iirc, only skimmed so far.
lonewolf 11-04-07, 06:30 AM	While I agree with you, this is no proof but only the other way to interpret the rules. I will try to get a look into the rules compendium though, thanks.
Dheran 11-04-07, 11:03 AM	Actually it does leave it, at leats a portion of it does. In the real world, certainly. But in the D&D world there aren't distinguishable portions because there's no "facing". A human on a horse is considered to be occupying all four of the horse's squares simultaneously, whereas in the real world that's plainly impossible. And because there's no front or back of a D&D horse, when it moves it's only leaving the squares it no longer occupies. It hasn't left any squares it continues to occupy. Applying real-world mechanics to D&D is great, and helps when the rules don't cover things like being dead preventing your character from acting. But you need to be selective about when you do this, because you mustn't change the game rules in the process: then you're no longer playing D&D.
jaelis 11-04-07, 02:09 PM	By the letter of the rule, the horse wouldn't provoke, since the creature itself has not left a threatened square. I don't know whether that is the intent or not, but it does mean that two large(tall) creatures fighting each other can move up next to each other without provoking an AoO, just like two medium creatures can. Which is kind of nice... large vs large would use the same rules as medium vs medium.
PhaedrusXY 11-05-07, 01:27 AM	Very interesting... I'd never thought of that before. I do believe you're right. So you could ride up to an ogre on your horse and attack it with a longsword and not draw an AoO. Crazy.
strenoth 11-05-07, 01:53 AM	well, a guy on a horse running at you represents a lot mroe mass than a guy alone running at you, and probably faster too. So if nothing else, he tends to represent a threat you have to react to defensively rather than offensively.
risner 11-05-07, 10:15 AM	As I said I dont think this kind of reasoning is how this is intended to work, but I just cannot anything in the rules to prove it. I would appreciate any help. Did any square that the horse occupies leave a threatened square? If so, it provokes. In this case the head left a threatened square and provoked an AoO.
Orenmir 11-05-07, 10:25 AM	This is a very good question. RAW, I'd say the horse doe not provoke. But, I do think this is an oversight on the writers' part. I believe their intention was for the horse to provoke, and here's why..... Any creature with a 10' reach SHOULD be able to attack a creature without reach that is approaching him, before the approach is complete. This just makes common sense -- in BOTH the real world and D&D world. Regardless of how many squares I take up, if I try to approach a creature with reach and I don't have reach -- he will always be able to get an extra swing at me. This also goes for reaches that are longer than other reaches. A 15' reach should get an AoO on a 10' reach. I will concede this goes against RAW. Maybe the Rules Compendiumd fixed this. Anyone care to quote it?
risner 11-05-07, 10:48 AM	By the letter of the rule, the horse wouldn't provoke, since the creature itself has not left a threatened square. I don't know whether that is the intent or not, but it does mean that two large(tall) creatures fighting each other can move up next to each other without provoking an AoO, just like two medium creatures can. Which is kind of nice... large vs large would use the same rules as medium vs medium. PHB p150: "A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it." You do move within its reach, no one can argue that point. Spell targeting only require a portion of the Large creature visible for targeting. PHB p149: "Very large creatures take up more than 1 square" This almost seems like an assertion that a Large creature doesn't take up more than one square. I don't see the need to try to interpret the large creature as taking up one square and not four squares. If a large creature takes up four individual squares, if one part of him leaves one square then he provokes. If you allow this line of questioning, then you must allow a Large creature to enter a square threatened (in one square of his four) and leave that square the same way it came in without provoking. Clearly that is not what would happen.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 11:43 AM	For those who believe in "segments" of creatures: a b c d 1| |B|B| | 2| |B|B| | 3| |C|C| | 4| |C|C| | 5| |A|A| | 6| |A|A| | Assume all creatures in this example are horses. [10 ft space, 5 ft reach]. If C uses his full attack & attacks A once with his front hoof, then turns around and bites B with his bite- does he draw an AoO? Of course not. The fact that his "front portion" moved from 4b&c to 3b&c is irrelevent for the purposes of AoO's. You can consider this a "proof by contradiction". If in your first example an AoO was provoked, then C surely would have provoked an AoO in this example. [for movement out of a square, even though it was not a part of a move action] Now expand this a bit: (for further demonstration's sake) a b c d 1| | | | | | | 2| | | | | | | 3| |C|C| | | | 4| |C|C| | | | 5| | | |A|A| | 6| | | |A|A| | If A regular moved to the right, then it would provoke an AoO from C, despite only a "part" of it moving out of a threatened square. The important distinction here is that there is no such thing as "the top left portion of A". There is just the area that A takes up- it doesn't need to have any portion of its body designated for certain squares. If the creature moves and it no longer occupies a square it is considered to have "left the square".
whitebaron 11-05-07, 01:16 PM	here's how my original argument in the original discussion went: Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes [...] 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. which means to me, a "move" move-action triggers an AoO, even if other parts enter the threatened square you were leaving with parts (the parts are not really necessary for this conclusion). ?: if it is like this, then you can't even move into a square without getting AoOd? !: No, since the movement counts for the square you left. Any AoOs would have to take place before the action that triggers it, so moving into a threatened square can't count, as you already finished your move. ?: The table seems to say that any move action incurs an AoO. !: in the descriptive texts to the table, there is a clear difference to be seen between move action and move. this used to be move-equivalent action and move in 3.0, which was way better to distinguish, but way worse to spell.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 01:51 PM	Originally Posted by already resolved problems with that discussion ?: if it is like this, then you can't even move into a square without getting AoOd? !: No, since the movement counts for the square you left. Any AoOs would have to take place before the action that triggers it, so moving into a threatened square can't count, as you already finished your move. That's not a very good resolution to that. Movement doesn't "count for the square you left" (you just made that up) - > there is a specific AoO you draw for moving out of a square that is threatened. The table specifically says everything on the table doesn't include that AoO-> which means that first entry either means that you draw an AoO for moving INTO threatened squares or the line itself is an error. [probably written before they added the part about leaving threatened squares] This is neither here nor there, though- my first illustrated points out very nicely why you can't treat large creatures as being collectives of medium-sized chunks. [which is actually what the OP is saying triggers the AoO]
risner 11-05-07, 02:09 PM	If C uses his full attack & attacks A once with his front hoof, then turns around and bites B with his bite- does he draw an AoO? Of course not. The fact that his "front portion" moved from 4b&c to 3b&c is irrelevent for the purposes of AoO's. You can consider this a "proof by contradiction". Irrelevant, there is no facing, so no part of the horse moved in your example. As a result, you have shown no example to disprove the assertion that a move to get adjacent doesn't provide as expected.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 02:49 PM	Irrelevant, there is no facing, so no part of the horse moved in your example. As a result, you have shown no example to disprove the assertion that a move to get adjacent doesn't provide as expected. That was exactly my point. My example assumes that you can disect a creature into smaller parts (ie- there is facing). If you could, things like this begin to happen & the rules break down. Since the conclusion directly contradicts the way we know the rules work, large creatures obviously can't be disected in this fashion. There's not really such a thing as "the top left space" that a creature occupies. There are the collective spaces it occupies, and that's it.
jaelis 11-05-07, 03:12 PM	PHB p150: "A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it." "Normally," you are a PC and thus medium or small sized, so this statement is correct. I would be hesitant to generalize it, since it is certainly not true in many cases. (For instance, if you have equal or greater reach yourself.) Spell targeting only require a portion of the Large creature visible for targeting. PHB p149: "Very large creatures take up more than 1 square" Those are both perfectly consistent. A large creature takes up several squares, and you treat it as occupying each one of those squares. That's why you can attack any square and target any square with a spell. But there is only one creature. The fundamental rule for AoOs is that a creature provokes when it moves out of a threatened square. There is only one creature, and that creature is not leaving any threatened squares. I don't really see any way around that. This almost seems like an assertion that a Large creature doesn't take up more than one square. I don't see the need to try to interpret the large creature as taking up one square and not four squares. If a large creature takes up four individual squares, if one part of him leaves one square then he provokes. But that's not the rule. The creature needs to leave a threatened square, not "part" of a creature. The whole idea of "part" of a creature isn't well defined. I think this is what McJarvis is getting at. The horse could fairly say that it is starting with it's left forefoot in that square and leaving it there the whole time, with the rest of its body pivoting around it. Then you wouldn't even have the notion of part of its body leaving the square. If you allow this line of questioning, then you must allow a Large creature to enter a square threatened (in one square of his four) and leave that square the same way it came in without provoking. Sure that would provoke. Why not? There's just one creature. If it leaves a threatened square, then it provokes. If it shifts its space in such a way that it doesn't leave a threatened square, then it doesn't provoke.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 04:30 PM	That's not a very good resolution to that. Movement doesn't "count for the square you left" (you just made that up) - > there is a specific AoO you draw for moving out of a square that is threatened. re-read my statement. it says "movement counts only for the square you left since the AoO would have to take place before the action". @others: pls re-read my line of argumentation above. it is not based on leaving or not leaving a square, but on the notion in the table that any "movement" move-action provokes. (i hate them guys for doing "move actions" and do "a move" as move action)
McJarvis 11-05-07, 04:34 PM	re-read my statement. it says "movement counts only for the square you left since the AoO would have to take place before the action". I don't know why that makes a difference. If an AoO prevented someone from moving into a square(for instance, by killing them), then they just wouldn't enter the square. It'd use the same "order" logic that readied actions often take- which is to say, the Klein Bottle kind. Or a more relevent example- You can provoke an AoO on a charge during the action taking place- not beforehand when you're off in the distance. All of this is irrelevent, though. The subscript in the table specifically says that the table doesn't refer to movement. Using a move action to move is the same thing as movement(or rather- is a subset of movement)- you're just playing with words.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 04:57 PM	All of this is irrelevent, though. The subscript in the table specifically says that the table doesn't refer to movement. Using a move action to move is the same thing as movement(or rather- is a subset of movement)- you're just playing with words. i know you want to win this argument badly. but: the srd has two specific words. Move Action and Move. They are close to each other, but not equals. hence they have the need to clarify this even in the text later on. MOVE ACTIONS With the exception of specific movement-related skills, most move actions don’t require a check. Move The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step. Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed). [....] see the underlined part. i'm not toying with words, they did. they actually used the same word for two different things with the only difference of adding a "-action" behind it. so you literally take the "Move-Move-Action" like you would do the "Pickup an item-Move-Action" and those "moves" provoke, as per the table. if you mean this part of the subscript "This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity." - this is the same for all kinds of actions, like charging, bullrushing, overrun. this means, basically, that if the action gets an AoO, and you move out of a threatened square, you could do 2 AoOs. but let's not talk this over here again. we wanted to hear other opinions, not your or my take on this.
jaelis 11-05-07, 05:05 PM	whitebaron, I don't get your argument. You say a "move" move-action triggers an AoO, even if other parts enter the threatened square you were leaving with parts (the parts are not really necessary for this conclusion). How can you say the parts aren't necessary? If you weren't thinking about parts, the creature would not be leaving a threatened square. Your point seems to be that the srd says a move action provokes if you leave a threatened square. We all agree on that. The question is: does the creature leave a threatened square in this case? How does the rule you quote bear on that question?
whitebaron 11-05-07, 05:16 PM	Your point seems to be that the srd says a move action provokes if you leave a threatened square. We all agree on that. The question is: does the creature leave a threatened square in this case? How does the rule you quote bear on that question? the srd says that, which is in the text and additionally it states that any "move" move-action (read: moving up to your speed) provokes in addition to this. "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square,[...]" the rules text says that you provoke either if you leave a threatened square (which must not be due to you r own accord for that concern!) or you do any other action, which is listed in the tables. and one of the actions in these tables, is ordinary movement. (movement is a move-action - but not every move-action is movement. - sooo stupid using the same word for two different things, but can't think of anything better than falling back to the 3.0 term: move-equivalent action.)
jaelis 11-05-07, 05:29 PM	OK. So you're saying that any movement provokes an AoO. The whole "moving out of a threatened square" thing is just a red herring? I think I get your point... you're saying that any movement provokes, but of course you can only take the AoO if you threaten the creature. Since the AoO takes place before the provoking action, you are only able to take the AoO if the creature started in a square you threaten, so it must normally be moving out of such a square. But for a large creature, it is possible to (1) move without leaving a threatened square and (2) be threatened before you move So in this case moving out of the threatened square is irrelevant... you are moving, you are threatened, therefore you take an AoO. Is that a correct summary of what you are saying?
whitebaron 11-05-07, 05:32 PM	yes, and in addition, if somebody else moves you, you provoke as well. thats the point after my argument. (sorry, i might be quite fluent in english, but making my point clear seems to be very hard nevertheless.)
PhaedrusXY 11-05-07, 05:47 PM	Edit: Yeah, I think Whitebaron is right. English is my native tongue, and I'm still having a hard time clearly summarizing what he's pointing out. :P The "leaving a threatened area" phrase covers the times when you move but don't take a move action, such as when you're falling, are bull-rushed, etc, as he says.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 05:57 PM	first of all, the word leaving is never used in the srd lines concerning this. it's always called "move out" - if this is supposed to be the same as leave, i cannot decide. leave is voluntarily. move out is not necessarily so. also, please give arguments, not thoughts. we all think the one or the other way about this, but the question: what is written in the rules, can only be deciphered (oh boy, i wish i had ranks in that) by sticking to quotes and the original srd. leaving a square is only one part of the equation. there certainly is the other, which tells 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. 1Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action. 2Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule. and again, i'm at a loss here. the third usage of "move" - "moving" - is this meant to be a move action, a description of what's happeneing, or meant to be a "move" ?....
jaelis 11-05-07, 07:21 PM	yes, and in addition, if somebody else moves you, you provoke as well. OK. I guess I don't yet see the relevance of what happens when someone else moves you... I think you are looking for a precision of language that isn't really there. But as far as your basic point, here's a few things I wonder about: 1) Consider a swarm standing next to you: 0000 0ss0 0ss0 0x00 (you are the x, the swarm is the s). Swarms are shapeable, so it could move to, for instance 0000 00ss 0ss0 0x00 By your logic, that would provoke an AoO, and it doesn't seem like it should to me. 2) The rules also say "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." Your interpretation is that the rules are using "moving out" to refer to movement outside your control, as opposed to simply taking a move action which provokes because it is a distracting act. Applying that logic here would suggest that the restriction of 1 AoO per round applies only to involuntary movement. So for instance, if you took a double move action to run a circle around your opponent, you would allow two AoOs? That doesn't sound right to me, though again I can't see anything that rules it out. 3. In the Elusive Target feat, you can trip a foe who takes an AoO on you for moving out of a threatened square. It doesn't seem likely to me that this is meant to apply only to a particular sort of AoO for movement... if any movement provokes, why not just have it apply when you provoke an AoO for movement? On the whole, I'd say your logic works, but it seems a little tortuous to me. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong either with saying that it's movement out of a threatened square that provokes, not movement in general. That seems more straightforward to me.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 07:48 PM	@1: unless x is carrying a reach weapon, you would not threaten the squares that moved. also, "shaping" a swarm is in fact, movement of different swarms. Larger swarms are represented by [u]multiples of single swarms[u]. A large swarm is completely shapeable, though it usually remains contiguous. so yes, you should get an aoo if you threaten them and they move. @2: the restriction is not 1 AoO per round per opponent. it is 1 AoO per action per opponent. you can perfectly well first cast (get an AoO) and then normally move away (another AoO) This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). your example with running, is one AoO, as it is only one opportunity. (its not important that you would get two variants on how to create that attack. it still is only one action, and thus can only provoke once.) @3: i won't comment on the quality of supplements. but, basically, you'd have to say that they are never concerned about the implication of rules, when writing those - they just use standard phrases that "look right"
jaelis 11-05-07, 08:40 PM	@1: unless x is carrying a reach weapon, you would not threaten the squares that moved. also, "shaping" a swarm is in fact, movement of different swarms. Actually, even a single swarm is also shapeable: Unlike other creatures with a 10-foot space, a swarm is shapeable. It can occupy any four contiguous squares, and it can squeeze through any space large enough to contain one of its component creatures. With that in mind, are you saying that in general you threaten and take AoOs on a square, not a creature? Because I'm confident that's not right. A single swarm is one creature, and is capable of moving part of itself that you don't threaten. By your reasoning, it has taken a move action to move, which provokes regardless of how or where you threaten it. @2: the restriction is not 1 AoO per round per opponent. it is 1 AoO per action per opponent. you can perfectly well first cast (get an AoO) and then normally move away (another AoO) Yes, but in the "conventional" interpretation, you can only get one AoO for a double move. In your interpretation, you get two (since you've made two actions.) This would come up, for instance, if you only have 20 ft movement and your opponent has 30 ft reach... it would take you a double move to get away. your example with running, is one AoO, as it is only one opportunity. (its not important that you would get two variants on how to create that attack. it still is only one action, and thus can only provoke once.) How are you claiming that two move actions is only one action? There is no "full round move" action. It would indeed seem inconsistent though, that you would provoke 2 AoO's for a double move, but only one for the "run" full round action. I think you are forced to accept that by your reasoning, however. @3: i won't comment on the quality of supplements. but, basically, you'd have to say that they are never concerned about the implication of rules, when writing those - they just use standard phrases that "look right" Well, they are the authors of the game. It is not unreasonable to look at the language they use for clues as to how they think about these things.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 10:53 PM	i know you want to win this argument badly. I'll just give up here then if you really think this debate is about winning. :rolleyes:
Nom 11-05-07, 11:36 PM	Does the first creature provoke an AoO from this movement? My first reaction to this situation was: "of course it should" but I was shown another side of the argument that I cannot really invalidate(and Im hoping for help here since I still thinkn that it should provoke an AoO):The rules don't have an example on this explicit case. You can argue either way until you're blue in the face, but without a FAQ or Sage Advice ruling it's inconclusive. The better option is to use common sense. A medium creature enters your threat range and then moves closer. Do they provoke an AoO? Of course. Unless you want to rule that a larger creature is not vulnerable by virtue of being larger (something the rules never even hint at), then I'd recommend using the consistent ruling, regardless of strange arguments from the above diagrams.
PhaedrusXY 11-06-07, 12:01 AM	What is this? The Voice of Reason? Get out of here. We're discussing game mechanics. (Just kidding! :P )
StevenO 11-06-07, 12:10 AM	The large creature will provoke an AoO with its movement. There is no sound arguement to why a large (or bigger) creature would be safe from AoO just because parts of it still occupy an area that it started in. You need to consider the movement of each part as an isolated situation. If you want to say that the creature doesn't move from those shared squares then it has arguably turned its back to the attacker and deserves an AoO for that.
jaelis 11-06-07, 12:31 AM	There is no sound arguement to why a large (or bigger) creature would be safe from AoO just because parts of it still occupy an area that it started in. You need to consider the movement of each part as an isolated situation. If you want to say that the creature doesn't move from those shared squares then it has arguably turned its back to the attacker and deserves an AoO for that. I would say that argument is pretty sound... the rules talk about attacking creatures, not squares or parts of creatures. Nom's point is fair enough. It's probably most sensible to not worry about ambiguous cases and play it however it seems right. But saying the argument is pointless isn't the same as saying it is wrong :)
whitebaron 11-06-07, 03:08 AM	as for the swarm: it doesn't say you need to move to reshape. so this is more like an inherent ability, which is not covered by the move-action table. Yes, but in the "conventional" interpretation, you can only get one AoO for a double move. In your interpretation, you get two (since you've made two actions.) This would come up, for instance, if you only have 20 ft movement and your opponent has 30 ft reach... it would take you a double move to get away. well, you just brought me to some conclusion here. a double move actually would get 2 AoOs since its 2 opportunities. i just thought that there really is an entry double-move in this table. as it is not, its 2 AoOs. How are you claiming that two move actions is only one action? There is no "full round move" action. It would indeed seem inconsistent though, that you would provoke 2 AoO's for a double move, but only one for the "run" full round action. I think you are forced to accept that by your reasoning, however. as run has other restrictions that apply (straight line, but faster) this might be true. you can move in circles if you want, but you can always only run in a straight line and almost always (baring feats) only on a good underground. Well, they are the authors of the game. It is not unreasonable to look at the language they use for clues as to how they think about these things. they are authors of supplements, which means - they have not necessarily anything to do with core rules, their occupation is flavor, and expanding the game. @nom & stepheno: as much as reason is valued - i wanted this to be settled down via the rules text. but for good measure, i sent a request to askdnd.
mucki 11-06-07, 04:56 AM	First, I would like to make a general points regarding this discussion: Not everyone here is a native speaker, and even if we all would be, it always pays off to have a very defined vocabulary for discussing such things so that everyone can clearly understand what you actually mean. In that respect: The rules specifically say "move out of a square", not "leave a square". While this may sound the same at first, "leave" definitely carries a conotation of "not being in that square anymore at all" after the movement is complete, while move out does less so. Or to summarize: If a part of me moved out of a square, then I have also moved out of a square (in a sense). But I have not left the square. Now, the above point is nit-pickery and imho only important if you want to interpret the rules down to the very last detail and see which is the exact meaning (which I think is impossible due to the possible interpretations). If, on the other hand, you want to see which interpretation of the ruling is the most fair to creatures of all sizes then the procedure is simple: List all possible scenarios for AoO and movement (ie: moving away from attacker, towards attacker, sideways, ...) and then for each size, see if it provokes or not. If you can find an interpretation that works the same for all, then i think it is clearly superior (in the sense of more fair) to an interpretation that doesn't provide this. If you think about it for a bit, you will realize that we only need to consider a move of 5' (not a 5' step) and two cases: a) The square in question is "on the border" of the creature. Meaning that before the move the square belongs to the creature, and afterwards it doesn't. b) The square in question is "in the middle" of the creature. Meaning that before the move the square belongs to the creature, and afterwards it still does. Now, medium or smaller creatures only have A-type squares (one to be exact), large creatures have A- or B type squares, depending on the direction of the movement, huge and larger creatures have B-type squares in the middle, and A- or B-type squares on the border depening on the direction of the movement. The question now reduces to the question: Do B-Type squares provoke AoO ? If they don't then large and larger creatures get advantages over medium and smaller creatures. In addition it seems odd to me that AoO should somehow depend on the direction you are moving (but this second point does not justify the ruling, since as I pointed out in the tavern, many odd things are possible with DnD rules). So, to conclude: If you want AoO to be the same for creatures of all sizes, B-Type squares should provoke. Therefore the rule should read as "if any part of a creature moves out of a square", which incidentally also corrrects the discussed table.
The_sleeper1 11-06-07, 11:46 AM	In the example provided the horse does leave the threatned square the fact that another part of it also enters the square does not change the AoO that happens before any movement happens. If on the other hand your saying that the horse's front half stays in the square and that its back half moves to occupie the same square as its front quatters and then move foward. I must note that in order to do that the creature needs to squeeze so it fits in to a 2X1 set of squares and then it swings it hind quatters out from the threatned square in to the one ajacient to the other creature. Because the horse needs to squeze to do that it also have a reduction to its ac in addition to the AoO that happens before it stops squeezing since the AoO happens before the action that triggered it. No, even large creatures trigger when they move no matter where or how they are dragging there but.
jaelis 11-06-07, 11:58 AM	as for the swarm: it doesn't say you need to move to reshape. so this is more like an inherent ability, which is not covered by the move-action table. So you are willing to posit a whole new (and indefinite) mechanic for how swarms reshape themselves? It seems like your argument is taking you pretty far out on a limb. (So what is the mechanic? What kind of action do you think it takes for a swarm to reshape?) well, you just brought me to some conclusion here. a double move actually would get 2 AoOs since its 2 opportunities. i just thought that there really is an entry double-move in this table. as it is not, its 2 AoOs. Again, this seems a stretch given the clear statement that "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong. But it does seem to have a hard time squaring with other rules. The simpler idea that only movement out of a threatened square provokes looks to me like a much more natural position.
jaelis 11-06-07, 12:10 PM	The rules specifically say "move out of a square", not "leave a square". While this may sound the same at first, "leave" definitely carries a conotation of "not being in that square anymore at all" after the movement is complete, while move out does less so. I think you are looking for precision that is not there. I would not say that "leaving a square" conotes anything different than "moving out of a square." YMMV... connotations are slippery. So, to conclude: If you want AoO to be the same for creatures of all sizes, B-Type squares should provoke. Therefore the rule should read as "if any part of a creature moves out of a square", which incidentally also corrrects the discussed table. On the other hand, if you want two large creatures to be able to interact in the same way that two medium creatures interact, then B-type squares should not provoke. In that case, the rule should read as "if a creature moves out of a square." In the example provided the horse does leave the threatned square the fact that another part of it also enters the square does not change the AoO that happens before any movement happens. As a wise songwriter once said, "A horse is a horse, of course." It is either in the square or not, and if it starts in the square and remains in the square, then I don't see how it could leave. --- I think I see why the language is fuzzy here. Let's talk about people instead, that is more concrete. You are standing in a room with a floor divided into one inch squares. One particular square is painted red, and your left foot is standing on it. Now slide your foot forward an inch, and ask yourself, 'Have I left the red square?' A natural answer would be 'That doesn't make sense... I wasn't "in" the red square to begin with, rather the square was in my space. So it doesn't make sense to talk about leaving it... I've been outside it the whole time.' And I think that's the root of Nom's point. There's no good basis for discussion, because the rule isn't worded in a way that really makes sense for a large creature. So one answer to the OP's question is that the rules just don't say. But if you insist on an answer, then I think the only logical way to interpret "being in the red square" is as "occupying the area within the red square." When you shuffle your foot forward, you continue to occupy that area... I really don't see how anyone could claim that by making that shuffle, you have left the square.
The_sleeper1 11-06-07, 05:19 PM	As a wise songwriter once said, "A horse is a horse, of course." It is either in the square or not, and if it starts in the square and remains in the square, then I don't see how it could leave. There in lies the point of contention I dont think it starts in the square and stays in the square by D&D terms it need not be anything like or related to reality. They start in one set of squares then leaves those squares and enters a different set that is over lapping some of the same squares. There fore it moved. Looking at it a different way. Question: is it in the EXACT same squares it started in? Clearly no, it must have move and left the square it was in.
jaelis 11-07-07, 09:21 AM	Question: is it in the EXACT same squares it started in? Certainly not. Clearly no, it must have move and left the square it was in. Certainly it moved. But why does that mean it left that particular square in question? What if it really did rotate about that square... would that change your perspective? What about my red square analogy? You would seriously contend that if you, The_sleeper1, were standing on a small red square and shuffled your foot forward that you have left that square?