Simple Q&A (By RAW) III

[blue_fenix]

Q485

Wealth by level for level 20?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A. 485

DMG, page 135.

[Jasdoif]

Q486

How does Withdraw work with a creature that takes up more then one five-foot square? Is the creature's first 5 feet of movement exempt from attacks of opportunity, or are all the occupied squares exempted for the entirety of the action?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A. 486

The creature start out in all squares, so all squares are exempt.

That entry is really poorly worded.

[Citizen Joe]

Q487

Assuming a horse (space 10'/reach 5') is attacking at man with a reach weapon. As the horse moves in, some of its space squares enter the man's threatened squares (10'). As the horse moves to become adjacent (5') it still occupied the threatened square. Does this move generate an attack of opportunity?

Q488

Which squares does a man that is mounted on a horse threaten?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A. 487

Yes. If any part of the creature leaves a threatened square it provokes an AoO.

A. 488

It depends on the reach of his weapon.

You share the space of the mount, so you treat him as if he occupied all the squares of said mount.

Say he has 5 foot reach; the rider would threaten all 12 squares around the horse.

[Citizen Joe]

A. 487

Yes. If any part of the creature leaves a threatened square it provokes an AoO.

Could I get a RAW reference?

[Jasdoif]

Could I get a RAW reference?

Alright.

An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent.

The key is that it isn't the square that provokes the attack of opportunity; it's the creature that provokes it. Moving out of a threatened square means the creature provokes an attack of opportunity, so any opponent that threatens it (ie, threatens any of the five-foot squares it occupies) is allowed to make an attack of opportunity against it.

Alternatively, it may be worth noting that the size of the threatened square isn't defined. As appears to be the case with my question on Withdraw above, for a larger creature its square means the larger square occupied by the creature. A Large foe moves out of a ten-foot square, for instance; thus anyone threatening that ten-foot square gets an AoO if one is provoked.

[Citizen Joe]

But you DIDN'T move out of the square, you're still in it, just a different part of you. I'm looking for a reference that parts of your body count as separate entities.

[Curmudgeon]

Re: Q 480

How can you make an AoO against an oppoenent you don't threaten? Entering the square means they are not threatened yet.

You threaten squares, not opponents. Normally you don't get an AoO when someone enters a square you threaten, but feats and so on are ways to buy exceptions to the rules; that's how. An example:

Hold The Line (General)

Benefit: You may make an attack of opportunity against a charging opponent who enters an area you threaten. Your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved.
Normal: You only get an attack of opportunity against a character that exits a square you threaten.

Hold the Line can give you two AoOs against someone who charges you if you have a 10' reach: one for entering your first threatened area, and one for leaving it. Both AoOs happen just before their attack.

[Jasdoif]

But you DIDN'T move out of the square, you're still in it, just a different part of you. I'm looking for a reference that parts of your body count as separate entities.

...Let me try this again. You've moved out of a threatened square, which means you provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone who threatens you. Whether the particular squares they threaten still contain you or not is irrelevant.

[Citizen Joe]

OK, let me draw this out a bit

= guy with reach weapon (10' reach)
= horse

STARTING POSITION:
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

FIRST STEP: enters threatened square of
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

SECOND STEP: moves adjacent to , note that is still occupying the threatened square.
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

Assuming no special feats did provoke an AoO from in step 2? If so please cite the rule, given that has not left a threatened square.

[Bitzeralisis]

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Reach Weapons

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

The answer is simple: yes. And I like the way you did that grid.

[Jasdoif]

Spoiler

Show

OK, let me draw this out a bit

= guy with reach weapon (10' reach)
= horse

STARTING POSITION:
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

FIRST STEP: enters threatened square of
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

SECOND STEP: moves adjacent to , note that is still occupying the threatened square.
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]

Assuming no special feats did provoke an AoO from in step 2? If so please cite the rule, given that has not left a threatened square.

Ahh, I see now....You know, this would all be a lot easier if the combat rules didn't assume Small or Medium, single-five-foot-square-occupying combatants. A number of pieces in the combat section could do with some clarification, actually....

Well then...looks like a different approach is the answer. Normal movement is an activity that provokes attacks of opportunity while threatened. So, moving from C1:D2 to B1:C2 provokes an attack of opportunity, and since bitter-reach-weapon-face threatens C1 and C2, he can make an attack of opportunity.

[Citizen Joe]

I'm not denying that the horse isn't threatened, I'm saying that at no point has it LEFT a threatened square. Thus no provocation via leaving threatened square. What I'm looking for is a RAW citation that states that if a portion of a multisquare creature leaves a threatened square that it provokes an AoO.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'm not denying that the horse isn't threatened, I'm saying that at no point has it LEFT a threatened square. Thus no provocation via leaving threatened square. What I'm looking for is a RAW citation that states that if a portion of a multisquare creature leaves a threatened square that it provokes an AoO.

I don't think you will find anything that directly deals with "multisquare" creatures, although you might find an example in some book or the FAQ even.

But whether part of your body is still in the square is irrelevant, you were still moving out of a threatened square.
(Not being in the square with any part of your body is not a requirement for provoking an AoO.)

[Curmudgeon]

you were still moving out of a threatened square.

I can't agree with this. The horse was in the CC & DD columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. Then it was in the BB & CC columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. It never left the CC columns.

D&D doesn't have "facing", so no particular part of the horse is actually considered to be distinctly in the CC columns as opposed to those columns to the left or right (and the horse could have theoretically done a somersault to keep the same parts of its anatomy in the CC column squares). By the RAW no AoO was provoked.

[Bitzeralisis]

I can't agree with this. The horse was in the CC & DD columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. Then it was in the BB & CC columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. It never left the CC columns.

D&D doesn't have "facing", so no particular part of the horse is actually considered to be distinctly in the CC columns as opposed to those columns to the left or right (and the horse could have theoretically done a somersault to keep the same parts of its anatomy in the CC column squares). By the RAW no AoO was provoked.

Yeah, I think you're right. I made a mistake. The horse still gets AoOed, however, at step 3.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

It never left the CC columns.

It is still not about leaving, it is about moving out of. As soon as any part of the creatures moves out of the square it provokes an AoO.

AoOs interrupt the normal flow, so you have not even left the square when the AoO is made and you may never have to.

If I were to ignore all context and intend I could potentially arrive at the other interpretation.

[Curmudgeon]

It is still not about leaving, it is about moving out of. As soon as any part of the creatures moves out of the square it provokes an AoO.

OK, but what part of the creature moved out of the square? Without facing, we are, by the rules, not capable of determining any individual location or movement by any particular part of the creature. If some parts of the creature were in those two squares before the movement, and some parts of the creature were in those same squares after the movement, it hasn't moved out of those threatened squares.

This is the essential nature of D&D's simplified grid occupation system. Following the rules requires us to ignore the real-world mechanics of how creatures actually move, just as we ignore the real-world impossibility of a human being able to reach all points around a 10' square simultaneously by virtue of being on a horse. The rules don't let us assign a riding human to a particular one of the horse's 4 squares. Thus they can't let us assign the horse's "forequarters" or "hindquarters" to any of those squares either. Consequently no individually discernible part of the horse left the threatened squares; the whole horse just moved. And if it kept moving, then it would provoke by moving out of the threatened squares.

[Alveanerle]

Q. 489
Can a ToB class use its maneuvers/stances while under the effect of rage?

Q. 490
Can "standard action strike" maneuvers be used in grapple? What about other forms of maneuvers and stances?

[Citizen Joe]

A 487 Epilogue

I am willing to concede that this is ill defined or undefined in RAW and thus does not fall into the SIMPLE requirement for this thread. As a parting editorial, I will mention that I believe the AoO rules were developed as a means to get that parting shot on creatures that turn an run from a fight (which I know was at least a house rule back in my second edition days). As such, they work well when people try to flee. It is only when we have people trying to get AoO's against incoming/attacking people that the confusion erupts.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

OK, but what part of the creature moved out of the square? Without facing, we are, by the rules, not capable of determining any individual location or movement by any particular part of the creature. If some parts of the creature were in those two squares before the movement, and some parts of the creature were in those same squares after the movement, it hasn't moved out of those threatened squares.

Even if the same parts of the creature ended up in those squares, because the horse were doing somersaults, the parts that do move forward still has to pass through the threatened squares and thus would provoke an AoO.

This is the essential nature of D&D's simplified grid occupation system. Following the rules requires us to ignore the real-world mechanics of how creatures actually move, just as we ignore the real-world impossibility of a human being able to reach all points around a 10' square simultaneously by virtue of being on a horse. The rules don't let us assign a riding human to a particular one of the horse's 4 squares. Thus they can't let us assign the horse's "forequarters" or "hindquarters" to any of those squares either. Consequently no individually discernible part of the horse left the threatened squares; the whole horse just moved. And if it kept moving, then it would provoke by moving out of the threatened squares.

The combat system is simplistic and thus use miniatures to represent creatures.
If you move a large miniature forward the front part tries to move out out of the front squares and thus provokes an AoO.

For you to show that a particular part of a creature does not move out of a square, to circumvent the AoO rules (that were written for small/medium creatures), your argument requires that you do assign specific parts of the creature to the squares and that the creature then moves in a highly unreasonable fashion.

The other interpretation requires that all parts of the creature occupy all squares at once (no facing) and that all squares are treated individually (squares are threatened, not creatures), so movement out of a square will provoke whether there is movement into the square at the same time.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A. 489

Yes, unless the maneuver require the use of one of the exceptions listed in the description of Rage.

While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.

A. 490

The list of actions under grapple is not exhaustive so some maneuvers might require DM adjudication.
However, since you are allowed to attack in a grapple you can of course also use a "standard action strike" as long as you use a light weapon and observe the -4 penalty to attack.

[Justyn]

Q. 491a
Does a creature with the insectile (Savage Species 122) template qualify to take Multiweapon Fighting?

Q. 491b If so, how many attacks does it get? Disreguard if the answer to 491a is "no".


My reason for asking this question is that many people say that because the "attacks" section of the template reads "Dispite having six arms, an insectile creature gains no additional attacks", this means that they can only hold weapons with two hands, while others say that because they have six arms and thus, barring injury, six hands, they are allowed to take and use the multiweapon fighting feat to make six attacks.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A. 491 a

Strictly speaking the creature does qualify since it has more than 2 hands.

A. 491 b

There is no benefit over TWF feats of taking the Multiweapon feats.
Multiweapon Fighting does not grant any attacks, it just reduces the penalties with hands you can already make attacks with, so you can still only make use 2 hands/arms to make attacks.

[Amiria]

Q 492

When a Lyric Thaumaturge (CM) uses his Sonic Might ability on a spell with a duration of more than one round (i.e. Song of Discord) does it do the extra sonic damage on every round or only on the first ?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

492

Most abilities that add extra damage to spells that deal damage over a number of rounds only add the extra damage on the first round. I would assume the same applies to Sonic Might.

[Amiria]

Q 492 addendum

Aha, but Song of Discord doesn't even deal damage to its targets (they do it to each other, ). However, since it has the [Sonic] descriptor, the spell is an eligible carrier for the Sonic Might ability.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Re: A 492 addendum

Hm...

Sonic might can "add damage" rather than "add extra damage." So it appears Sonic Might can be added to that spell. But I would assume the same principles that make additional damage last only one round in such instances would apply, whether or not the spell normally does damage.