AoO or not?

[Infiniti2000]

I've never seen, read, or heard of it [full round casting provoking an AoO later in the round] played this way. The 1 full round casting time gives the fighter a chance to move up and attack the spellcaster, and possibly disrupt the spell. But it doesn't give him an automatic AoO at the same time.

Now, if it doesn't seem to be the case with the Core example of cross-round activity, why should the rogue be any different? He provokes when he starts to pick the lock. After that someone can whack him to try and disrupt that, but he's not in a constant state of provokage.

That's because casting a spell is a specific exception: "You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least one full round." Performing a distracting act has no such exception explicitly identified. I take the lack of such an exception to mean that it doesn't exist. Why do you take the lack of such an exception to mean that the exception in fact exists?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I take the lack of such an exception to mean that it doesn't exist. Why do you take the lack of such an exception to mean that the exception in fact exists?

I don't think it's an exception, I think it's the general rule. Actions provoke when you start them. They don't provoke continuously. Spellcasting has set the precedent, and there's nothing else in the rules to contradict the precedent in the very rare cases when the Start/Complete Full Round Action actions come into play. I think that if there were meant to be such a thing as continual provocation of AoOs, it would have been spelled out. It's not something that can be derived naturally from the given rules.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I beg to differ. The precedent is that actions provoke the AoO. The precedent is not that the starting of actions provoke the AoO. Nothing about attacks of opportunity ever differentiate the starting of an action from the action itself.

 

[atom crash]

You can provoke an AoO outside your turn. If you take an AoO (which is by definition outside your turn), it could provoke an AoO (such as trying to disarm someone running past you).

Yes, you can provoke an AoO outside of your turn through the use of some special tactics during your own AoO. But we weren't arguing about trying to disarm an opponent running past you. Silly me. I assumed that when I wrote:

you can take actions only during your turn -- barring an exception like the immediate action, which is a free action and doesn't provoke an AoO. therefore, you only provoke an AoOs during your turn.

it was understood that what I meant was:

"you can take actions only during your turn -- barring an exception like the immediate action, which is a free action and doesn't provoke an AoO. therefore, you only provoke an AoO by performing a distracting action during your turn."

Or maybe this is more clear:

"Except for the special case of the Immediate Action, you only perform actions during your turn. Therefore any actions you perform that might provoke an AoO happen during your turn. Those AoOs will happen during your turn, not in those spaces between turns."

Again, the rules do not treat actions that occur over multiple rounds as continuous actions. The rules treat them as separate actions over multiple rounds: start full-round action and complete full-round action.

The example for casting a spell that takes longer than one round is the only example I can find in the rules of how to deal with AoOs during actions that occur over multiple rounds. I cannot find an example for "performing a distracting action" over multiple rounds, so I'm going to have to go with what I have. I see your point, Infiniti, but I just don't agree with you, based on the paragraph above.

If I was a betting man, I'd say that the rules specifically address casting spells over multiple rounds but not other distracting actions (like your example of picking a lock) because casting spells will probably come up more often.

Edit: What I'd like to see to support your interpretation is an entry on the AoO chart for start or complete a full round action with a special notation to the side, and then another paragraph or footnote to clarify the point.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Again, the rules do not treat actions that occur over multiple rounds as continuous actions. The rules treat them as separate actions over multiple rounds: start full-round action and complete full-round action.

I noticed this quote in the SRD as well:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

Infiniti, would you rule that a PC that had performed the "Start Full Round Action" in one round must execute the "Complete Full Round Action" in the following round? Or could the PC choose to abandon the attempt and do something else entirely?

What if it were a slowed rogue/cleric? Could he start picking a lock, then when his nearby friend suddenly takes a deadly blow choose in the next round to cast a cure spell instead of completing the lock picking?

 

[Thanee]

You can't just claim it's a special case and hand-wave it away.

Why not? It is a special case... even AoO has it listed seperately.

If you spend a standard action to start a full round action, and then a standard action to complete it, during this time are you or are you not "performing a full round action?"

No, you are performing two standard actions, one is the "start full-round action" standard action and the other the "complete full-round action" standard action. While similar, it's not the same as a full-round action, it's two successive, but seperate standard actions.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

Infiniti, would you rule that a PC that had performed the "Start Full Round Action" in one round must execute the "Complete Full Round Action" in the following round? Or could the PC choose to abandon the attempt and do something else entirely?

Although the rules don't dictate one way or another, I rule that you can abort an action. You could, for instance, stop movement if something occurs (elf passing by a secret door for example), stop picking a lock if you get hit with a trap and make your concentration check (which would force you to stop, but you could choose to stop), etc.

What if it were a slowed rogue/cleric? Could he start picking a lock, then when his nearby friend suddenly takes a deadly blow choose in the next round to cast a cure spell instead of completing the lock picking?

You can choose to abort the full round action, yes, and take a different standard action instead of the complete full-round action. This is supported, IMO, with the word "can", but still I don't think the rules are clear on aborting actions.

Again, the rules do not treat actions that occur over multiple rounds as continuous actions. The rules treat them as separate actions over multiple rounds: start full-round action and complete full-round action.

Actually, from my view the rules treat this case as both. There are two standard actions that produce one, continuous full round action. The fact that you are performing a full round action is explicitly mentioned. So, you can't say that you are not performing a full round action. You, and by this I mean Thanee can't say that that full round action is different for all the normal rules on full round actions (other than the obvious that it takes two standard actions and two rounds to complete).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we all understand the points in both sides and we'll just have to disagree. I'm more than willing to continue discussing it, though, if you wish.

 

[irdeggman]

I beg to differ. The precedent is that actions provoke the AoO. The precedent is not that the starting of actions provoke the AoO. Nothing about attacks of opportunity ever differentiate the starting of an action from the action itself.

Per your own reference to a copy of the SRD

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

So how does the action get interrupted if it is not the starting of the action that causes the AoO? This is especially clear when the action only takes a standard action to perform.

This also fits if using swift actions - which don't provoke AoO because they occur too quickly to present the opportunity.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, from my view the rules treat this case as both. There are two standard actions that produce one, continuous full round action. The fact that you are performing a full round action is explicitly mentioned. So, you can't say that you are not performing a full round action. You, and by this I mean Thanee can't say that that full round action is different for all the normal rules on full round actions (other than the obvious that it takes two standard actions and two rounds to complete).

But you aren't performing a full-round action. You're performing 1/2 of a full-round action as a standard action, then performing the other half of a full-round action as another standard action. The fact that you can choose not to perform the second standard action further goes to show that it's not a single, continuous action.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we all understand the points in both sides and we'll just have to disagree.

I suppose you're right about this.