Spend Standard Action, Move to take AoO, Get Reduced to 0 Zero: Still get to move?

[IndyPendant]

I can see how you came to your ruling, jeffman, but I agree with the consensus as well: the PC should have gotten the move action.

Let me illustrate the point by this example: BBEG readies an action to attack the next person to come within 10' of him. Wounded PC takes the Withdraw full-round action away from an opponent, and moves past the BBEG at 10'--normally beyond the BBEG's threat range. However, the BBEG's Ready triggers, he steps 5', and attacks the PC--bringing the PC down to 0.

Now, by your ruling, the PC can not complete the Withdraw action. Worse, since Withdraw is a full-round action, he never could have taken it in the first place! --Which means the original opponent the PC withdrew from also gets his AoO against the PC retroactively.

Clearly, the only solution is to allow the PC to have taken the Withdraw action after all--a full-round action. There *might* be precedent for forcing the PC to stop his Withdraw where he got hit due to being Staggered--but that would clearly be a house rule, not supported by any RAW quote. Regardless, though, the point is that in order to clear up confusion, you're allowing the PC to have taken the full-round action.

And if that's the only solution in the above scenario--then your PC should have been given the Move portion of her full round's actions as well in your scenario. She should have been allowed to complete the move.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I guess another way to look at it, had they instead been dropped to -1 HPs, would you allow them to continue to Move and then drop unconcious?

Being knocked unconcious is clearly a case of Action Interruptus.

Why, specifically?

Because you didn't just deny the Move Action, nor allow it, you allowed only part of it. It has no basis in the rules on either side. Being disabled either allows the Move Action or not. It does not cancel it or interrupt. Did she take the Move Action? Yes, unquestionable so. What part of being disabled only allows you to move 5ft (or even 10ft, or some fraction thereof)?

 

[werk]

Because you didn't just deny the Move Action, nor allow it, you allowed only part of it. It has no basis in the rules on either side. Being disabled either allows the Move Action or not. It does not cancel it or interrupt. Did she take the Move Action? Yes, unquestionable so. What part of being disabled only allows you to move 5ft (or even 10ft, or some fraction thereof)?

OK, let me gather up a bunch of straw here...

A character is moving through another character's threat range, say full move, 80'. The threatening creature has an enfeebling weapon, so when he strikes the first character on an AoO it reduces that character's strength to the point that it becomes encumbered and is no longer able to move the full 80'.
Can it complete the move, or do you adjust? Why or why not?


(you know I've been struggling with readies and AoO for a while ;p )

 

[irdeggman]

Thanee is correct. The standard action has already occurred. The character was not attempting to do more than the allowed actions once the conditon that casused the restriction had occured (i.e., going to 0 hit points).


You seem to be "backfitting" to the beginnng of the characters actions and then applying the penalty. If so the "correct" thing to do whould have been a a concentration check since she took damage when casting. And this would have negated any casting on the defensive since the damage is being applied to the character at the start of her actions.

This is where the logic of what you had done breaks down.

At one time you are backfitting damage to a previous point in time and then at another yuo are not.

 

[jeffman]

Clarification

If so the "correct" thing to do whould have been a a concentration check since she took damage when casting. And this would have negated any casting on the defensive since the damage is being applied to the character at the start of her actions.

This is where the logic of what you had done breaks down.

At one time you are backfitting damage to a previous point in time and then at another yuo are not.

To clarify, she got the AoO from moving after she casted, not from casting.

The rest of your post I don't really understand

 

[jeffman]

Math Rocks

OK, let me gather up a bunch of straw here...

A character is moving through another character's threat range, say full move, 80'. The threatening creature has an enfeebling weapon, so when he strikes the first character on an AoO it reduces that character's strength to the point that it becomes encumbered and is no longer able to move the full 80'.
Can it complete the move, or do you adjust? Why or why not?


(you know I've been struggling with readies and AoO for a while ;p )

I'd rule this:
If you were doing a simple move action and your speed is normally 40. And, lets say you move 20 before you are hit and have your str reduced so that your normal speed is 30. You used 1/2 of your move action, meaning you still have 1/2 of your move action left at a speed of 30, meaning you can still move 15. So, net effect is you end up only being able to move 35 and not 40.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is a certain logic to the ruling, but I would let the PC keep moving.

Hyper-self-consistency can create a lot of work without any benefit to gameplay.

And if we want to be extremely literal...a PC who takes Dex damage from an AoO, does he get to act again 2 initiative counts later? Or is he prevented from continuing because now his initiative count is later? That coin has two sides.

We can also have a lot of bookkeeping "fun" when a character steps in and out of an Anti-Matgic Zone.

Just don't go there, I say.

 

[jeffman]

People Are Left to Fill In the Gaps in the Rules

Being knocked unconcious is clearly a case of Action Interruptus.

Because you didn't just deny the Move Action, nor allow it, you allowed only part of it. It has no basis in the rules on either side. Being disabled either allows the Move Action or not. It does not cancel it or interrupt. Did she take the Move Action? Yes, unquestionable so. What part of being disabled only allows you to move 5ft (or even 10ft, or some fraction thereof)?

But isn't being knocked unconscious a case of only allowing part of it?

Being disabled does not allow the move action, hence why once she was disabled she couldn't have it anymore. But she was allowed to have it during the time she was not disabled, hence how she can only have "part" of it.
(She used her move action to move one square which caused her to be disabled and lose the rest of her move action).

(and btw, I think people who are disagreeing with my ruling are making really good points)

What part of being disabled only allows you to move 5ft (or even 10ft, or some fraction thereof)?

No part, hence why she became disabled she couldn't move anymore. The 5' movement she made was when she was not disabled.

 

[jeffman]

Practicalities

Hyper-self-consistency can create a lot of work without any benefit to gameplay.

And if we want to be extremely literal...a PC who takes Dex damage from an AoO, does he get to act again 2 initiative counts later? Or is he prevented from continuing because now his initiative count is later? That coin has two sides.

Technically, yeah, if the player's init. is 10 and he takes -4 dex damage is is now 8, the person at init. 9 should be able to go before the character can finish their action (and the character will be at init. 8 for the upcoming rounds).

I personally don't think that is too much work to keep track of, but I could see how ppl would ignore it and wait till the next round for the init. effect to take place.

 

[RigaMortus2]

And if we want to be extremely literal...a PC who takes Dex damage from an AoO, does he get to act again 2 initiative counts later? Or is he prevented from continuing because now his initiative count is later? That coin has two sides.

No, because init is only determined at the beginning of combat. Once it is rolled and determined, the only thing that can change it is Ready and Delay.