AoO or not?

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't think that you can specify your readied action as "when he's in the middle of drinking a potion." The description of readying seems to indicate that you specify an action "when he drinks a potion" and your readied action then goes off immediately before said action.

I disagree, but the occurrences are rare. Here's one such rare case that does not involve a readied action. Imagine a slowed rogue trying to open a lock. He must use two standard actions over two rounds. If the enemy wants to interrupt him, they can move to the rogue and the rogue immediately provokes an AoO for performing a distracting act in their threatened area.

This is an interesting scenario, but I'd rule that the rogue does not immediately provoke an AoO. Now, when it gets to the rogue's turn, he has a choice to make. He can complete the full-round action (and then provoke an AoO), he can attack, he can move away, etc. If he Withdraws (standard action) he doesn't provoke at all. Of course, the lock remains unpicked and he'll have to start over, but them's the breaks.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't think that you can specify your readied action as "when he's in the middle of drinking a potion." The description of readying seems to indicate that you specify an action "when he drinks a potion" and your readied action then goes off immediately before said action.

That almost sounds reasonable, albeit I say it is not according to the rules, except in some situations. If you can't ready an action to trigger in the middle of someone else's action, then you can't, say, ready to fire your crossbow at someone moving across an open room. So, if you stand there and guard a 20ft wide room with a crossbow, you're totally useless. It can't be done unless the people moving past you have a movement rate of less than 20 (I assume you'd at least allow the trigger to occur between two move actions). (Edit: the assumption is that they have total cover outside the room, on either side.)

You have to admit that that interpretation is inherently illogical.

 

[irdeggman]

So, you're saying that readying an action actually puts you back in time? That especially makes readying against a charge interesting. I mean no offense, but do you really believe what you wrote or are you just cutting n' pasting the SRD without trying to reason out some examples and putting the rule in context? Just think about the charge example, as one of many. How about disrupting a spell, what concentration check do you need? If I ready "if she starts casting a spell" then clearly 'she' must make a concentration check. Based on what you wrote, my attack occurs before the casting starts, despite how I word the trigger. In fact, I suppose according to you I could ready "if she almost completes the spell" and when my action triggers in the middle of hers, I still move back in time to complete the attack before she starts. Anyway, when we look on the concentration table, the first one applies, so you're saying the table is in error when it says "damaged during the action", right?

Let's look at the ready action again then shall we?

Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).

Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster’s spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.
A spellcaster can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, but it doesn’t always work.

Readying a Weapon against a Charge: You can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character.

The words say that if you damage the caster she may lose the spellshe was trying to cast.

The sequence goes like this:

1. (in order of initiative) You: ready an action to attack spellcaster if she attempts to cast a spell. {This is a standard action}

2. Caster attempts to cast a spell. {This triggers the ready action which is resolved prior to the action that triggered it}

If you successfully damage the caster then she makes a concentration check (as per the skill) tosee if the spell is disrupted. If you managed to knock her out or kill or disable her then she cannot cast the spell and no concentrationt check is even necessary - the spell doesn't go off.

Consequences of this situation are that You now has reset his order in the initiative order to immediately prior to the spellcaster from that point on. You can change this by delay or ready or some other action.

You can ready an action for something that has already started. the spellcaster in thsi situation must make the concentration check if she takes any damage from the point of starting to cast until completion (this is more applicable to full round casting times vice standard action ones) It is the act of starting to cast that triggers the AoO not completion.

as has been pointed out AoO are generated by the target's actions and not by someone else. By merely close enough to hit a rogue picking a lock I do not genrate an AoO against him. If on his next action (after I am in place to threaten him) provokes an AoO then I get to take one.

The round is 6 seconds long after all, breaking it down into too much detail is just an excersice in futility, IMO. Like partially drinking a potion or partially casting a spell, etc.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's a lot to type out and you still didn't respond to my post at all, though I certainly appreciate the effort. Note that you are contradicting yourself when, on one hand, you say that the readied action does not occur during the action that triggered it, and on the other hand, you say that it does.

No, I'm obviously not advocating breaking down the round into seconds, half-seconds, half-actions, quarter-actions, or whatever, but a readied action can -- indeed, must -- occur in the middle of someone else's action.

One other thing, I never suggested that you generate an AoO on the rogue. That's suggesting a meaning totally opposite to what I said. A creature provokes an AoO while performing certain actions. It's up to you to prove that the rogue in my example is not picking the lock the whole time, that there's a gap.

 

[Thanee]

He must use two standard actions over two rounds. If the enemy wants to interrupt him, they can move to the rogue and the rogue immediately provokes an AoO for performing a distracting act in their threatened area.

Nope, that is what I was saying... there would be no AoO.

Getting hurt might warrant a Concentration check of some sort, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

You have to admit that that interpretation is inherently illogical.

Movement is always a special case there, especially since it can easily be broken down into seperate 5 ft. (sometimes 10 ft. diagonally) moves.

Bye
Thanee

 

[atom crash]

Are you arguing then that you only perform the action on your turn? So, when you perform a full round action as two standard actions, there's a gap? Can you defend this viewpoint? I see nothing about the Start/Complete FRA that says you are not performing the action outside your turn.

by game mechanics, you only perform actions on your turn. you might draw an attack of opprtunity when you choose to start or complete a full-round action -- as per Lord Pendragon's post above -- but i see nothing in the rules that hints that you might continue to provoke an AoO outside your turn. and unless i see a reference to the contrary, i'm ruling that you provoke AoOs only on your turn. the rules treat such actions not as one continuous action but as separate actions over a number of rounds.

this is much the same way it is assumed you are constantly trading jabs and switching positions with your opponent during combat, but the rules dictate that you only make attack rolls during your turn.

realistically, you'd have to be performing the action outside your turn -- just like a fighter stand still for 6 seconds while his opponent attacks before he can attack again -- but we're not arguing realism here. we're talking about rules mechanics for a game. also remember that although actions in a combat round are assumed to happen simultaneously, the rules deal with actions one at a time based on initiative scores.

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. you'll have to prove to me otherwise.

 

[Thanee]

And here's the most important part from my above quotes once more, so it doesn't get overlooked.

When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

Movement is always a special case there, especially since it can easily be broken down into seperate 5 ft. (sometimes 10 ft. diagonally) moves.

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

by game mechanics, you only perform actions on your turn.

This is what Thanee says and quotes the rule on it. I agree for the most part(obviously), but my example notes what I believe is an exception: start a full round action. 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?" My view is yes because it says you are "undertaking a full-round action", and therefore my example with the rogue is valid. If you say no, then you must be arguing that either undertaking does not mean performing or some other reason.

...but we're not arguing realism here. we're talking about rules mechanics for a game.

I agree and that's why I'm only presenting it as rules mechanics. I think my response above does so sufficiently.

therefore, you only provoke an AoOs during your turn.

I think you are only trying to refer to this example, but your statement is still false. 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).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That almost sounds reasonable, albeit I say it is not according to the rules, except in some situations. If you can't ready an action to trigger in the middle of someone else's action, then you can't, say, ready to fire your crossbow at someone moving across an open room. So, if you stand there and guard a 20ft wide room with a crossbow, you're totally useless. It can't be done unless the people moving past you have a movement rate of less than 20 (I assume you'd at least allow the trigger to occur between two move actions). (Edit: the assumption is that they have total cover outside the room, on either side.)

You have to admit that that interpretation is inherently illogical.

Sure. We're talking about trying to simulate simultaneity through a turn-based system. I'm not suggesting that a guard can't protect a 20ft. wide room. I'm suggesting that he readies for someone to appear in range, and when that someone does, his attack goes off. Basically, you have to ready for a specific action, like movement or an attack. You can't ready for a specific part of an action, like readying for when a foe brings the potion to his lips, or takes his first gulp.

I'm not entirely sure I disagree with you about how readied actions work in general. In the case of the potion drinker, for instance, I'd see the scenario like this:

Guy 1: <readies an action to move up to Guy 2 if he starts to drink a potion>
Guy 2: <starts to drink a potion>
Guy 1: <moves up to Guy 1>
Guy 2: <drinks a potion> <provokes an AoO>

The difference of opinion between us lies in how actions spanning rounds are handled. I don't agree with your "continuous AoO provocation" interpretation.

Consider the core example we have of this phenomenon: the Summon Monster spells. They require 1 full round to cast. So RAW, the spellcaster is casting for the entire time between his action and the beginning of his next action in the following round. If your interpretation were true, a fighter could move up to the spellcaster and get two hits on him for the price of one. When he got within range, he'd get an AoO provoked by the spellcaster's continued spellcasting, plus he'd get his own attack by using the Attack action.

I've never seen, read, or heard of it 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.