PDA

View Full Version : RAW Issues



2xMachina
2010-07-10, 08:44 AM
So, I'm reading some feats, and saw some things that can be stupid.

Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?

Diehard/rageclaws
Oh, so you can work normally at negative HP? If you were hit with 1 nonlethal damage, you're unconscious like any other fella with no feat.

Any other things?
I know Drown healing (which kills you anyway), Monk non-proficiency.

WinWin
2010-07-10, 08:49 AM
Death does not prevent you from taking actions. Being unconscious does.

Terazul
2010-07-10, 08:49 AM
*Looks in*

So, I'm reading some feats, and saw some things that can be stupid.

Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?


No. It says you can make a number of additional AoOs based on your Dexterity bonus. You don't have a bonus, you have a penalty. So it does nothing, and you keep your 1 AoO a round.

Don't remember how the rageclaws soulmeld works off the top of my head, so... eh.

Morph Bark
2010-07-10, 08:50 AM
Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?

It says "You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus". It does not mention penalties, so you never get less AoOs.

EDIT: Hey look, first time I got ninja'd rather than doing the ninja-ing.

Yora
2010-07-10, 08:53 AM
I think there's not a single game that can be played by raw. At least no RPG. This is why there's a gm who brings common sense to the game as required.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 08:54 AM
It is reasonable to assume that even if a feat does not have prerequisites, one does not take it if one does not stand to benefit.

One of the nastiest ones is using a tower shield with the Hide Skill... which somehow allows you to hide yourself, including the shield.


Rules as written will always include bugs, simplifications, and oversights. You just have to bring a decent DM to the table, instead of adopting an attitude of "Do not slight the Written Rules Most Holy".

RAW is often shorthand for RAIITAYCPMWN, after all.

Bharg
2010-07-10, 08:57 AM
It is reasonable to assume that even if a feat does not have prerequisites, one does not take it if one does not stand to benefit.

One of the nastiest ones is using a tower shield with the Hide Skill... which somehow allows you to hide yourself, including the shield.


Rules as written will always include bugs, simplifications, and oversights. You just have to bring a decent DM to the table, instead of adopting an attitude of "Do not slight the Written Rules Most Holy".

RAW is often shorthand for RAIITAYCPMWN, after all.

Oh really?! :smalleek:

Roland St. Jude
2010-07-10, 08:57 AM
Sheriff: Threads discussing oddities or failures of RAW are frequent. I'm going to change the title of this one to attempt to prevent the term "RAWtard" from becoming one that gets used here. (If directed at a fellow poster, it is an insult.)

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 08:59 AM
Oh really?! :smalleek:

It gets better -- objects can provide cover even if they're completely transparent. So you can hide behind a pane of glass.

Bharg
2010-07-10, 09:07 AM
So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

Hiding behind a box of air?

Standing behind something transparent would still mean you are in line of sight, if I am not mistaken...

Townopolis
2010-07-10, 09:08 AM
Who? Me? Oh no, I'm just a mannequin showing off this armor for all the window shoppers.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 09:10 AM
So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

The point is that it's part of your equipment, so you've successfully hidden it, even though you're hiding behind it.

It's just one of the nastiest cases of "Written Rules Most Holy" in existence. With the possible exception of the even nastier "hide behind a pane of glass".


Commoner Packet Relay Service is pretty bad as well.

Bharg
2010-07-10, 09:17 AM
Are you sure, there aren't always other rules that have to be ignored to exploit something like that (other than the DM saying: Nay, nay!)? :\

Yora
2010-07-10, 09:20 AM
The point is that it's part of your equipment, so you've successfully hidden it, even though you're hiding behind it.

It's just one of the nastiest cases of "Written Rules Most Holy" in existence. With the possible exception of the even nastier "hide behind a pane of glass".
But is there really any need to write it in the rulebooks that you can't do such things? I don't think so.

Runestar
2010-07-10, 09:30 AM
It's funny, I always thought combat reflexes had a prereq of 13dex...:smallannoyed:

2xMachina
2010-07-10, 10:50 AM
Aw, I was wrong.

For the diehard, it does not overwrite unconsciousness by non-lethal though.

IdleMuse
2010-07-10, 11:35 AM
In the same line as Combat Reflexes, a 'quick' reading of the rules indicates that a character with Dex 8 has a HIGHER Flat-footed AC than their regular AC :smalltongue:

Douglas
2010-07-10, 11:57 AM
In the same line as Combat Reflexes, a 'quick' reading of the rules indicates that a character with Dex 8 has a HIGHER Flat-footed AC than their regular AC :smalltongue:
Only if by 'quick' you mean 'someone who doesn't know the bonus vs modifier distinction'.

IdleMuse
2010-07-10, 01:00 PM
Only if by 'quick' you mean 'someone who doesn't know the bonus vs modifier distinction'.

That's exactly what I mean :smalltongue: same situation with Combat Reflexes really.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 02:07 PM
Full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke attacks of opportunity.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-10, 02:09 PM
So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

Hiding behind a box of air?

Standing behind something transparent would still mean you are in line of sight, if I am not mistaken...

Hey, if it works for solid snake...

Bharg
2010-07-10, 02:17 PM
Hey, if it works for solid snake...

Well, he is hiding inside a cardboard box! Enemies still see the box. It doesn't disappear. And he only can do so while he is not being observed!

Hide says: You can't hide while being observed. That's the problem with glass I guess. You can hide behind it, but people will still see you and you're !.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 02:58 PM
Full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke attacks of opportunity.

Wrong. A full attack allows you to make several attack actions. Those are defined under the standard action entry.

As for hiding behind a pane of glass, just distract them. You are now hidden.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:04 PM
Wrong. A full attack allows you to make several attack actions. Those are defined under the standard action entry.
That's not correct at all. You don't get to make any standard action attacks as part of a full attack action. Plus, the term "attack action" is never defined in the D&D rules.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 03:09 PM
That's not correct at all. You don't get to make any standard action attacks as part of a full attack action. Plus, the term "attack action" is never defined in the D&D rules.

Attack. Go back and look under the standard actions table.

They don't magically turn into something else because you're making them as part of a full attack.

NecroticPunch
2010-07-10, 03:09 PM
So if you can hide behind a pane of glass, or a tower shield, and by hiding behind a tower shield they can not see the tower shield... does that mean that RAW is insane?

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 03:11 PM
So if you can hide behind a pane of glass, or a tower shield, and by hiding behind a tower shield they can not see the tower shield... does that mean that RAW is insane?

No. The writers just forgot that you could gain cover from your equipment and from objects that can be seen through.

NecroticPunch
2010-07-10, 03:15 PM
I wonder... what if you were to hide behind a mirror, whenever there is a mirror behind you reflecting your image. Would you get cover still?

Bharg
2010-07-10, 03:16 PM
Does glass still block line of effect if it has no hitpoints ergo is less than 30 inch thick?

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:17 PM
Attack. Go back and look under the standard actions table.
Standard actions cannot be used in a full attack. The Actions in Combat table states that full attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and the text does not contradict this. A statement that a standard action ranged attack provokes has no relevance to a full attack.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 03:22 PM
Standard actions cannot be used in a full attack. The Actions in Combat table states that full attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and the text does not contradict this. A statement that a standard action ranged attack provokes has no relevance to a full attack.

The attack is defined under the rules for the standard action. The full attack is a special action that lets you do that more than once.

Full attacks don't provoke on their own -- the actions that comprise them can. If the table had said 'yes', then a full ranged attack would provoke one attack of opportunity per attack plus one for the full attack as a whole.

You aren't discussing straight RAW here, you're wilfully misinterpreting it.

dextercorvia
2010-07-10, 03:28 PM
The attack is defined under the rules for the standard action. The full attack is a special action that lets you do that more than once.

Full attacks don't provoke on their own -- the actions that comprise them can.

This isn't straight RAW, it's wilful misinterpretation. And it isn't even remotely funny.

An Attack is a Standard Action. A Full Attack is a Full Round Action comprised of multiple attacks. This is another area where the writers double use a common word. A Full Attack is not comprised of multiple Standard Action Attacks.


A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

It's a silly oversight on their part, but Curmudgeon isn't distorting anything here. They simply forgot someone might want to shoot more than one arrow in a round.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 03:34 PM
An Attack is a Standard Action. A Full Attack is a Full Round Action comprised of multiple attacks. This is another area where the writers double use a common word. A Full Attack is not comprised of multiple Standard Action Attacks.

No, they are the same thing.

"If you get more than one attack per round, you must use a full-round action to gain your additional attacks". The attack is already defined, and it's the same thing regardless of where it came from.

From then on, it's always referred to as an 'attack action', and clearly established that they can provoke in their own right, regardless of whether you made them off a standard or a full action.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:38 PM
The attack is defined under the rules for the standard action. The full attack is a special action that lets you do that more than once.
That's just not correct. Attacks are defined in the "Combat Statistics" section near the beginning of the Combat chapter. How you make standard action attacks is defined in the "Standard Actions" section of the Combat chapter. How you make full attacks is defined in the "Full-Round Actions" section of the Combat chapter, with additional material covered under "Special Attacks" later in the chapter.

dextercorvia
2010-07-10, 03:42 PM
I'm not seeing the from then on thing. I'm reading the Full Attack Action section and the only use of the word action I see is, Full Attack Action or Full Round Action. The attacks that comprise the FAA are part of the action, not actions in their own right. Action is a term which refers to the time something takes, and what can be accomplished: Free, Immediate, Swift, Move, Standard, Full Round.

It never says you can take multiple Standard Actions as a part of a Full Round action.

The only time the rules mention anything of the sort is an exception, something you wouldn't expect based on the wording. That is, that after your first attack, you may decide to make a move action instead of finishing your Full Attack. This is called Deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack. You make a single little a attack, and then decide whether that was your Attack, or that you are going to continue it as part of a Full Attack.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 03:54 PM
That's just not correct. Attacks are defined in the "Combat Statistics" section near the beginning of the Combat chapter. How you make standard action attacks is defined in the "Standard Actions" section of the Combat chapter. How you make full attacks is defined in the "Full-Round Actions" section of the Combat chapter, with additional material covered under "Special Attacks" later in the chapter.

An attack is actually defined under 'combat basics', which has this to say:


In combat, the most prevalent standard action is an attack. You can
move your speed and make an attack in a round (a move action and a
standard action). Experienced characters can attack more than once,
but only if they don’t move (a full-round action). Making a ranged
attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten
you (see below).


Or, in other words, full attacks only work as you claim if you wilfully ignore one of the fundamental principles of combat.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:56 PM
From then on, it's always referred to as an 'attack action'
That term isn't defined in D&D. Here's the official definition of action:
action: A character activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions. There's no mention of "attack action" here, and no specification in either glossary or text. An "attack action" seems to be some undefined shorthand that the authors used, and can be any activity that consists solely of attacking:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only actual inclusion of the term)
attack of opportunity
bonus attack (such as provided by Improved Trip)

dextercorvia
2010-07-10, 04:02 PM
That term isn't defined in D&D. Here's the official definition of action: There's no mention of "attack action" here, and no specification in either glossary or text. An "attack action" seems to be some undefined shorthand that the authors used, and can be any activity that consists solely of attacking:

standard action attack
full attack action (the only actual inclusion of the term)
attack of opportunity
bonus attack (such as provided by Improved Trip)


I would say that most of the time they use the term attack action they are referring to a Standard Action that includes an attack.

@lesserminion - Your reading of attack as an action contained in another action opens you up to even more weirdness, like snap kicking with each attack in a Full Attack. Or possibly, you would allow an archer to Manyshot with each of their Standard Action Attacks (made as part of a Full Attack).

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 04:02 PM
That term isn't defined in D&D. Here's the official definition of action: There's no mention of "attack action" here, and no specification in either glossary or text. An "attack action" seems to be some undefined shorthand that the authors used, and can be any activity that consists solely of attacking:

For future reference, it is. "An attack action" is the same thing as a "cast a spell action", or a "withdraw action".

But no, the term isn't used any more, they tend to just use "as an attack" now.


@lesserminion - Your reading of attack as an action contained in another action opens you up to even more weirdness, like snap kicking with each attack in a Full Attack. Or possibly, you would allow an archer to Manyshot with each of their Standard Action Attacks (made as part of a Full Attack).

No, it doesn't.

You can get attacks from a variety of different sources, and all of them follow the same rules (covered in combat basics and under the most common case -- the standard action attack).

Manyshot is a standard action that includes an attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 04:26 PM
Anyone have a reply to the direct quote from the PHB defining an attack and spelling out that a ranged attack provokes?
Sure.
COMBAT BASICS
ATTACKS

Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you (see below). Searching for anything that refers to "ranged attack" below this citation, I find this:

ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY
Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8–2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. The Actions in Combat table which is referred to says:

STANDARD ACTION Attack (ranged) provokes AoOs.
FULL-ROUND ACTION Full attack doesn't provoke AoOs.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 04:33 PM
Sure. Searching for anything that refers to "ranged attack" below this citation, I find this:
The Actions in Combat table which is referred to says:

STANDARD ACTION Attack (ranged) provokes AoOs.
FULL-ROUND ACTION Full attack doesn't provoke AoOs.


Text trumps table. You're still wilfully ignoring the rules.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 04:40 PM
Text trumps table. You're still wilfully ignoring the rules.
There's no text in the "Full-Round Actions" section that contradicts the table. You appear to be reading rules that aren't written.

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 04:46 PM
There's no text in the "Full-Round Actions" section that contradicts the table. You appear to be reading rules that aren't written.

There doesn't need to be.

The rules for any attack state that ranged attacks provoke.

The rules for a full attack say that you can make multiple attacks. They don't change the rules for those attacks, which are defined in two separate places.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 04:59 PM
The rules for any attack state that ranged attacks provoke.
The summary of attacks (1 paragraph) says that ranged attacks provoke, and refers to the following text for elaboration. That text in turn immediately refers to the table, which distinguishes between ranged standard action attacks (which provoke) and full-round action attacks (which don't).

lesser_minion
2010-07-10, 06:24 PM
The summary of attacks (1 paragraph) says that ranged attacks provoke, and refers to the following text for elaboration. That text in turn immediately refers to the table, which distinguishes between ranged standard action attacks (which provoke) and full-round action attacks (which don't).

No, it refers to the text later on the same page for an explanation of what an attack of opportunity is.

You are still wilfully disregarding a rule in favour of a single entry in a table that explicitly does not tell the entire story.

You don't have a leg to stand on and you won't admit it. The fact that the rules aren't 100% clear doesn't give you carte blanche to wilfully interpret them wrongly.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-10, 06:42 PM
No, it refers to the text later on the same page for an explanation of what an attack of opportunity is.

You are still wilfully disregarding a rule in favour of a single entry in a table that explicitly does not tell the entire story.

You don't have a leg to stand on and you won't admit it. The fact that the rules aren't 100% clear doesn't give you carte blanche to wilfully interpret them wrongly.

You are pretty much talking about RAI here, I think, LM.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-11, 12:21 AM
You don't have a leg to stand on and you won't admit it. The fact that the rules aren't 100% clear doesn't give you carte blanche to wilfully interpret them wrongly.
As Tiki Snakes noted, you're referring to what you (quite reasonably) believe the game authors intended. I, on the other hand, am sticking to the thread topic and addressing RAW issues: what the rules actually say instead. And the rules do say that full attacks, without qualification, don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

I believe we've thrashed this issue to the point of exhaustion.

Bugbeartrap
2010-07-11, 12:58 AM
@Curmudgeon: You have argued the RAW well, and I have come to the same conclusion, albiet one that defies reason.

In my own games it's something that my table has glossed over and we would never have known otherwise. Of course, we'll continue to play using the sane, RAI, interpretation.

Enguhl
2010-07-11, 02:29 AM
Only if by 'quick' you mean 'someone who doesn't know the bonus vs modifier distinction'.

Actually if you look at monster stats, they actually have a penalty to AC due to low dex.
Though in even greater irony, their flat footed is lowered due to lower dex as well. So a normal guy in full plate sleeping has higher AC than an uncoordinated guy in full plate sleeping.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-11, 03:34 AM
So a normal guy in full plate sleeping has higher AC than an uncoordinated guy in full plate sleeping.

Well, the sleeping guy is helpless and probably prone, so that will adversely affect his AC.

senrath
2010-07-11, 10:36 AM
Um, Killian? Both the people in that example are sleeping.

pres_man
2010-07-11, 11:13 AM
Um, Killian? Both the people in that example are sleeping.

If the person is helpless (such as when asleep), then you act like they have 0 Dex, thus a -5 Dex penalty to AC. Being prone gives another -4 AC vs. melee attacks. At that point it doesn't matter if someone has a high Dex normally or a low one, since they both are treated as having 0 Dex when helpless.

PapaNachos
2010-07-11, 01:15 PM
I still have to side with lesser_minion about how RAW works.


Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a
threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your
attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged
weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8–2: Actions in
Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Nothing is mentioned about what type of action (standard or full) is used for this attack.



If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack
bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a
double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks,
page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item)
you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

So, we've established that making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity. We've also established that a full attack is a way to get multiple attacks. If these attacks happen to be ranged they will provoke attacks of opportunity.

Full Attack (Does not provoke) consists of
->Ranged Attack 1 (Provokes)
->Ranged Attack 2 (Provokes)
...
->Ranged Attack N (Provokes)

If you insist on hiding behind the table, then I will agree by saying that the act of taking a full round attack does not inherently provoke an attack of opportunity, but the attacks that comprise the full attack do.

The Shadowmind
2010-07-11, 08:40 PM
By raw PC whisper gnomes from Races of Stone don't have any languages or bonus languages, so in order to even speak common they would have to spend skill points. NPC whisper gnomes can only speak gnome without spending the skill points.

PapaNachos
2010-07-11, 08:53 PM
By raw PC whisper gnomes from Races of Stone don't have any languages or bonus languages, so in order to even speak common they would have to spend skill points. NPC whisper gnomes can only speak gnome without spending the skill points.

Thats more of an oversight by the writers than an actual RAW issue. If you interpret it by RAW, then no they don't have a listing for automatic languages.

Edit: Still amusing though

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:56 AM
IIRC, there is no listing for normal vision either.

So... by raw, you can't see in normal light. And those without special vision can't see at all.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-12, 01:57 AM
Nothing is mentioned about what type of action (standard or full) is used for this attack.
That's exactly right, so they refer to the table, which does mention which types of distracting actions provoke. The fact that they don't provide qualifiers there, but refer to another part of the chapter, does not mean that they're waiving all qualifiers. After all, the section you quoted specifically states that only some distracting actions provoke AoOs.

Frosty
2010-07-12, 02:07 AM
Thats more of an oversight by the writers than an actual RAW issue. If you interpret it by RAW, then no they don't have a listing for automatic languages.

Edit: Still amusing though

More amusing than the RAW of Monks being non-proficient with Unarmed Strikes?

Sintanan
2010-07-12, 02:14 AM
I thought monks were always proficient with unarmed strikes. Isn't there a difference between the monk 'unarmed strike' and an attack made while unarmed?

Frosty
2010-07-12, 02:17 AM
I thought monks were always proficient with unarmed strikes. Isn't there a difference between the monk 'unarmed strike' and an attack made while unarmed?
There's no difference except that Monks get increased damage dice as they level up for Unarmed Strikes. They still need proficiency just like every other class that don't get Simple Weapons Proficiency. Imporved Unarmed Strike simply negates the AoO, not the -4 for non-proficiency.

Sintanan
2010-07-12, 02:21 AM
Oh... Wow... That's... Funny. :smallbiggrin:

On a side note (still related to the topic at hand)... one of my players recently discovered the healing-via-drowning tidbit.


Is there a list of all the fun RAW quirks out there somewhere?

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 05:25 AM
That's exactly right, so they refer to the table, which does mention which types of distracting actions provoke. The fact that they don't provide qualifiers there, but refer to another part of the chapter, does not mean that they're waiving all qualifiers. After all, the section you quoted specifically states that only some distracting actions provoke AoOs.
Attacking with a ranged weapon is specifically listed on page 137 of the players handbook as an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
The entire premise of your argument is that there is a difference between attacking with a ranged weapon and making a ranged attack.
Attacking with a ranged weapon means any type of attack using a ranged weapon.
Making a ranged attack could be argued to only mean taking a standard action to make a single attack with a ranged weapon. This is invalidated by the description of a Full-Round Action on page 139 of the Player's Handbook.

The most common type of full-round action is a full attack, which allows you to make multiple melee or ranged attacks in a single round.
This makes it clear that "Making a ranged attack" is not a key word for a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Even if a difference could be found between the two wordings, it still wouldn't negate the simple fact that using a ranged weapon to attack provokes an attack of opportunity.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-12, 05:53 AM
Attacking with a ranged weapon is specifically listed on page 137 of the players handbook as an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Actually, it doesn't say that it provokes; it just says it distracts.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8–2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. It tells you to refer to the Actions in Combat table to see which actions provokes AoOs. The table has yes, no, maybe, usually, and varies for whether particular actions provoke. The text quoted says (without qualifier) that casting a spell, and attacking with a ranged weapon are distracting acts. But casting a spell doesn't always provoke, because the table says casting a quickened spell does not provoke. And so it is for ranged attacks: distracting actions, but not necessarily actions that provoke AoOs. You need to follow the rules and refer to the table to see which ranged attacks provoke.

That's the RAW.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 11:29 AM
If we're treating 'distracting act' as a keyword then technically the transitive property would not apply. However, nothing actually indicates the usage of a key word and by virtue of being synonymous we can apply A = B, B = C, therefor A = C. If you disagree you'll have to show that "distracting" is different from "diverting attention from"

If the rules of the English language aren't good enough, page 135 flat out says it.

Making a ranged
attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten
you (see below).

Actions that provoke attacks of opportunity include moving
(except as noted below), casting a spell, and attacking with a ranged
weapon.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-12, 12:16 PM
If the rules of the English language aren't good enough, page 135 flat out says it.
Yes, that's already been addressed; see this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8893427&postcount=40).

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 12:25 PM
That (see below) very definitely applies to what threatens, trying to apply it to the attack itself is willful misinterpretation.

Assuming you might do that is the entire reason that I included the other quote, which doesn't have the same problem.