Rules question about AoO and haste

[Henrix]

If one bothers to sit in one's cubicle reading the PHB instead of the SRD, then one will find himself looking for a new job.

LOL A good reply to my all-too snappy one!

His position is that wherever the rules say "per turn" or "per round" it means once-per-round, and that such rules cannot be sidestepped via haste.

Which is very well supported by the PHB, SRD, whatever, where both 'turn' and 'round' are defined.

 

[Caliban]

I would prefer a ruling exactly as you describe.

However, the Sage has ruled very explicitly, and very consistently, just the opposite. His position is that wherever the rules say "per turn" or "per round" it means once-per-round, and that such rules cannot be sidestepped via haste. Make of that what you will.

While I agree that is his position now, you can't say he has done this "very consistently". I remember the first time this came up and the Sage ruled that you could take a second 5' step with your extra hasted action. He later reversed his position.

 

[0-hr]

Hmm, if both Skip and Caliban actually agree on something, then the odds are that I'm doing it wrong. Ok, so "turn = round" rather than "turn = standard action". It's a bit of a paradigm shift for me, but I think I can do it (I've just been playing it incorrectly for the last couple of years is all...).

 

[Caliban]

Hmm, if both Skip and Caliban actually agree on something, then the odds are that I'm doing it wrong. Ok, so "turn = round" rather than "turn = standard action". It's a bit of a paradigm shift for me, but I think I can do it (I've just been playing it incorrectly for the last couple of years is all...).

I didn't actually say I agree with him.

I think your way makes more intuitive sense, but the letter of the rules seems to support the Sages position.

The PHB Glossary on page 282 defines turn as "the portion of each combat round in which a particular character acts."

 

[dcollins]

While I agree that is his position now, you can't say he has done this "very consistently". I remember the first time this came up and the Sage ruled that you could take a second 5' step with your extra hasted action. He later reversed his position.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and came within a hairs-breadth of adding "after the first few months" to my original post.

My "very consistently" qualifier is mostly thinking of a multi-part email of mine that he generously responded to on the topic, in which on every point he held to the same general theory... he even maintained that it's illegal to charge someone and then afterwards move away in any other direction via a haste-induced partial action (in the same round).