PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field



Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 03:30 AM
Q259

Caster A casts Antimagic Field on themself.

Caster B casts a summon monster/nature's ally and chooses a creature with reach (Elder Earth Elemental), and places it outside of the Antimagic Field.

The summoned creature attacks Caster A, or anyone else that is inside of the Antimagic Field.

Does the summon wink out? Is it able to attack normally, without the benefit of any magical enhancements to it's attack?

Thanks!


A259
The summoner creature can't melee attack the caster. Any part of the creature that enters (in this case an arm or something) winks out of existance.


A259

Technically by RAW attacks do not normally involve entering the target's square, so I think the summoned creature would be able to attack unhindered.


Yes, only the arm winks out. My reasoning is this. In the last sentence of the description of the AMF spell in the PHB, it says that "Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier in unaffected by the field."

It makes sense that any part lying IN the AMF is affected. Thus, part of a creature can be affected by AMF.

In the same way that any magical arrow entering an AMF loses its magical properties, any portion of the creature (like its arm) entering the AMF winks out of existance.

Any part of the summoned creature, including its gear, are affected by AMF and so the arrows will also wink out of existance. Same thing with a sword that a summoned creature carries. Basically, if something will poof when the duration of Summon Creature is up, then it'll be affected by the AMF.


While this is an interesting way of modeling D&D attacks for a house rule, this is the RAW thread, and douglas has provided the RAW answer: the summoned creature, outside the Antimagic Field, can make melee attacks against a creature inside the AF.


How do you work out this bit then? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm)

It is raw that creatures partially outside the AMF aren't affected on the parts that are outside.


Douglas is wrong.


Most D&D attacks don't require entering the target creature's square. The attacker, outside the Antimagic Field, doesn't (by RAW) "partially" leave their own square. All aspects of melee attacks are resolved in the attacker's space. Ranged attacks, on the other hand, are resolved in the target's space.

You'll need to provide a rules citation to back that up.

Do note that many aspects of combat are simplified by the D&D rules, and this is one such simplification. While in the real world you must extend a melee weapon to reach a target, in the D&D world you just need to be within your weapon's reach; no actual movement in the target's direction takes place. This is certainly no stranger than having no facing direction in the D&D world, another game rule simplification; in the real word your eyes don't work in all directions simultaneously.


Let me use this as supporting evidence then. Consider the following situation. You've got a human fighter of normal size and a non-reach weapon. A Large creature with a natural reach of 10 ft and without Improved Grapple or Improved Grab or any such similar abilities attempts to start a grapple on the human fighter. The creature starts 10 ft away from the human, so the human can't reach the creature normally, and doesn't threaten the creature.

Part of the grappling rules says: Make a touch attack to your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target. If the attack deals damage, the grapple fails.

No where in there does it say anything about the target having to threaten you. In order for this to make sense at all, the human must be striking at the creature's limbs as the creature extends its limbs forward to try to make that initial Touch Attack on the human.

By this example, it is not hard to see how a summoned creature can be partially affected by an AMF by extending its limbs into it for whatever reason.

Or that you can heal someone via drowning? :smallfrown:


However little sense healing by drowning makes, this is the RAW thread, not the RAMS thread. However, it's important to note that grappling is different from other attacks because you enter the target's square on a successful grapple attempt, which allows the AMF to apply by RAW. So the example is inapplicable in any case. To continue this discussion, I suggest you start a new thread. Otherwise we will be derailing this one.
This quotes all the preceding discussion from the Simple Q&A thread.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 03:35 AM
You have not refuted my point. The AoO happens at the Touch Attack stage of grappling, before the grappler enters the target's square. That reasoning alone is enough to say that creature can and do extend part of their limbs into other peoples' squares. This is completely RAW and not Rules as Makes Sense or whatever RAMS is.

attack of opportunity

A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Cover prevents attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are always limited to attackers who are in squares that you can reach. The touch attack to start a grapple is no exception to this.

Math_Mage
2010-08-26, 04:34 AM
Ah, I guess I missed the point about the nonexistent AoO. I think this is forgivable.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 09:22 AM
You didn't really refute his point at all. All you did was quote the exact wording of Attacks of Opportunity, which in the situation given, means that the Fighter threatens the arms of the Large creature attempting to grapple since the Large creature itself doesn't actually enter the same square as the Fighter until after it is successful on the grapple check.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 09:36 AM
frosty is right. the creature literally loses his hand when it goes into the range of the amf. cant grapple without no hands. and hands need to be closer than 10ft to touch the person in question.

all other issues on the point is moot. amf works that way against summoned creatures (phb 200) now if a summoned mosnter uses a nonsummoned military fork with enough reach that is a different story

Greenish
2010-08-26, 09:40 AM
You didn't really refute his point at all. All you did was quote the exact wording of Attacks of Opportunity, which in the situation given, means that the Fighter threatens the arms of the Large creature attempting to grappleThe original was in the Q&A by RAW thread. By RAW, there's no such thing as "threatening someone's arms".

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 09:46 AM
The original was in the Q&A by RAW thread. By RAW, there's no such thing as "threatening someone's arms".

That only holds true if by RAW a Large or larger creature never incurs AoO when trying to grapple a smaller creature that it isn't adjacent to or with in its reach, while it clearly says that attempting to grapple without the necessary feats does incur an AoO against the subject being grappled. Thus, since the grappler does not move until the grapple is established the only valid target for the AoO is the limbs being used to attempt the grapple.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 09:49 AM
That only holds true if by RAW a Large or larger creature never incurs AoO when trying to grapple a smaller creature that it isn't adjacent to or with in its reach, while it clearly says that attempting to grapple without the necessary feats does incur an AoO against the subject being grappled.It provokes an AoO, but without reach the target can't take it.

And that's only tangentially relevant to the original discussion about AMFs.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 09:52 AM
It provokes an AoO, but without reach the target can't take it.

And that's only tangentially relevant to the original discussion about AMFs.

Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Zaydos
2010-08-26, 09:57 AM
Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Grappling rules don't have to specify, the AoO rules specify that you have to threaten the grappler. RAW the AoO rules specifically state the target must be within reach, RAW does not take into account things like reaching your arms into an opponent's square. Actually at that point you should be taking into account that a character wielding a large greatsword ought to have reach because the weapon is more than a square long (which would make powerful build noticeably better). RAW doesn't take these things into account.

tyckspoon
2010-08-26, 09:59 AM
Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Grappling rules don't have to, the AoO and threatening rules say it. You can only AoO into squares you threaten.

Feh. Ninja'd in detail.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 09:59 AM
Grappling rules don't have to specify, the AoO rules specify that you have to threaten the grappler. RAW the AoO rules specifically state the target must be within reach, RAW does not take into account things like reaching your arms into an opponent's square. Actually at that point you should be taking into account that a character wielding a large greatsword ought to have reach because the weapon is more than a square long (which would make powerful build noticeably better). RAW doesn't take these things into account.

And as RAW states, Specific trumps General. The rules on Grappling specifically state that a grappler always incurs an AoO when attempting to establish a grapple without the necessary feats.

@Spoon: Specific trumps General.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 10:01 AM
Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.Yeah, and it wasn't relevant then either.


Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.Grapple rules (bless them) make an exception where you specifically don't have to threaten the attacker for it to provoke AoO. They don't make an exception for the rules where you have to be able to reach the target to attack it.

Just because something provokes AoO doesn't mean you can automatically take it. The grapple rules don't say that you can make an AoO, they say that the opponent provokes. If, say, you've already used your AoO for the turn, or been hit with Douse the Flames maneuver, or can't actually reach the target, well, tough luck.

[Edit]:
The rules on Grappling specifically state that a grappler always incurs an AoO when attempting to establish a grapple without the necessary feats.They say starting a grapple provokes an AoO, but make no exceptions for being able to take it.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 10:06 AM
Yeah, and it wasn't relevant then either.
Grapple rules (bless them) make an exception where you specifically don't have to threaten the attacker for it to provoke AoO. They don't make an exception for the rules where you have to be able to reach the target to attack it.

Just because something provokes AoO doesn't mean you can automatically take it. The grapple rules don't say that you can make an AoO, they say that the opponent provokes. If, say, you've already used your AoO for the turn, or been hit with Douse the Flames maneuver, or can't actually reach the target, well, tough luck.

That holds true in situations except for grappling. Yes, if you used your AoO for the turn and don't have combat reflexes you can't do diddly about something trying to grapple you. That's the action economy at work and Grappling only states that you always incur an AoO not that you always get one against the grappler.

The Grappling rules, as we've both agreed knowing, doesn't require you to threaten the target to incur the AoO, thus they don't have to be in your reach to take the AoO if you have one to take.

Again, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple are the target of the incurred AoO.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 10:09 AM
The Grappling rules, as we've both agreed knowing, doesn't require you to threaten the target to incur the AoO, thus they don't have to be in your reach to take the AoO if you have one to take.They make no such provision.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 10:10 AM
They make no such provision.

Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.

Edit: And this grapple situation that Frosty propositioned does pertain to the original question since the original question concerned a summoned monster with Reach attacking a target in an AMF. So a grapple is the same kind of situation save that its a Touch Attack instead of a normal melee attack.

Thinker
2010-08-26, 10:14 AM
Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.

Edit: And this grapple situation that Frosty propositioned does pertain to the original question since the original question concerned a summoned monster with Reach attacking a target in an AMF. So a grapple is the same kind of situation save that its a Touch Attack instead of a normal melee attack.

Where does it say in the rules that your reach is extended by being able to make an attack of opportunity?

Greenish
2010-08-26, 10:15 AM
Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.No, you're inferring something which is not said. The rules don't say grapple incurs an AoO, they say it provokes. Someone provoking an AoO, as has been established, doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to take one.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 10:16 AM
Where does it say in the rules that your reach is extended by being able to make an attack of opportunity?

Nowhere. In the rules for AoO you need to threaten the target to incur the AoO.

But we're speaking of Grapple rules, which not only state you don't need to threaten the target attempting to grapple you but also that their action (without the necessary feats) always incurs an AoO from the attempted grappled party.

Thus, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple is the target of the AoO.

Edit:

@Greenish: I'm using incur as a synonym for Provoke. :smallconfused:

Reynard
2010-08-26, 10:23 AM
Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2.

So, this discussion is somewhat pointless.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 10:25 AM
So, this discussion is somewhat pointless.

Not really. The discussion in question is trying to determine if, by RAW, a summoned monster with reach can make melee attacks against a PC in an AMF. We're just using a grappling situation as evidence.

Tyger
2010-08-26, 10:31 AM
Except you don't ever, by RAW, enter another's square to attack.

EX: A giant attacks a longsword wielding medium sized human 10 feet away. Said human can not, by RAW, ready to attack with a non-reach weapon, when it's hand comes into your square to hit you. If you could, it would render reach far less useful. Perhaps justifiably so.

RAW, you don't enter the square, so your summoned creatures can and do attack just fine. Doesn't make logical sense, but welcome to D&D.

EDIT: And I believe (though correct me if I am wrong) what Reynard was noting was that the grapple rules don't say you get to take an AoO, they say the grappler "provokes" an AoO. Lots of times a target will provoke an AoO and, for one reason or another, the other person doesn't get to take said AoO. If the target of the grapple had already taken their one AoO that round (and didn't have Combat Reflexes) they wouldn't get to take the AoO. Provoking and Making are two seperate parts of the AoO rules.

EDIT 2: I mistakenly used Hydra for the example of a reach critter using its own body to attack and not incurring AoOs, forgetting of course that the Hydra is the exception to the rule - specific trumping general again! :)

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 10:35 AM
Except you don't ever, by RAW, enter another's square to attack.

EX: A Hydra attacks a longsword wielding medium sized human 10 feet away. Said human can not, by RAW, ready to attack with a non-reach weapon, when it's head comes into your square to bite you. If you could, it would render reach far less useful. Perhaps justifiably so.

RAW, you don't enter the square, so your summoned creatures can and do attack just fine. Doesn't make logical sense, but welcome to D&D.

But the AMF states that Summoned creatures and incorporeal creatures who enter an AMF blink out of existence.

The discussion isn't whether the monster enters the PC's square but whether the Monster with Reach can attack the PC who's inside the AMF while the monster is outside of it.

Edit: But that's concerning the Action Economy, which we aren't discussing here.

Tyger
2010-08-26, 10:40 AM
But the AMF states that Summoned creatures and incorporeal creatures who enter an AMF blink out of existence.

The discussion isn't whether the monster enters the PC's square but whether the Monster with Reach can attack the PC who's inside the AMF while the monster is outside of it.

Edit: But that's concerning the Action Economy, which we aren't discussing here.

And again, this question is answered via RAW. RAW you do not enter any other squares when you are attacking. So the summoned creature never enters the squares enclosed by the AMF. Illogical as hell to think that a critter reaches across 10 feet of space to smack the mage at the center of the AMF without ever crossing that space, but there you have it. That's RAW for you. And there are no rules to support the alternate point. There's logic, reason, common sense, but no rules.

Grommen
2010-08-26, 10:44 AM
Getting back onto the subject (At least I think)

In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.

So why would a summoned monsters arms vanish when he put them into the field? If they do, would they not wink right back the second he pulled them out?

This would indicated that any magic, summoned or not, can not exist inside this Anti-Magic Field.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.

Me personally I favor the "Anti-Magic Field suppresses all magic period" way of thinking.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 10:49 AM
And again, this question is answered via RAW. RAW you do not enter any other squares when you are attacking. So the summoned creature never enters the squares enclosed by the AMF. Illogical as hell to think that a critter reaches across 10 feet of space to smack the mage at the center of the AMF without ever crossing that space, but there you have it. That's RAW for you. And there are no rules to support the alternate point. There's logic, reason, common sense, but no rules.

raw doesnt say in the squares, it says in the area, and it specifically says parts in the area. if he takes a swing the parts that get within the radius of the mage cease to exist untill they leave the area. and you can't hit someone with something that ceases to exist, let allon use nonexistant things to institute a grapple.

again military forks or boulder tossing help here as such things may not have been summoned. given such they may continue to exist within the area of the amf.

Zaydos
2010-08-26, 10:49 AM
Summons are a type of conjuration effect, but not the only type of conjuration effect.

The Orb spells work because they are 1) instantaneous, and 2) creation. You are creating something, not summoning it.

Disclaimer: I think that the orbs being shot into AMFs is stupid and a bad design choice, but that's the rules behind it.

Summons specifically do disappear if they enter an AMF, unlike Called creatures (also summoned by a Conjuration effect).

Edit:

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature.

Nothing about parts. Personally I'd rule that they'd have to fully enter the field, but RAW it is either all of them disappear or none of them, nothing about parts of them vanishing.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 10:51 AM
In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.We're not trying to reach a reasonable houserule here, but figure out the Rules as Written.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.But that's false dichotomy. Instantaneous conjurations work just fine within AMF, while summoned creatures do not.

And then the question is whether the summoned creature with reach enters AMF or not when attacking from outside it, and as far as I can tell, the RAW answer is "no".

Grapple rules don't help here, because, as I pointed out: "Someone provoking an AoO doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to take one."

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 10:54 AM
Getting back onto the subject (At least I think)

In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.

So why would a summoned monsters arms vanish when he put them into the field? If they do, would they not wink right back the second he pulled them out?

This would indicated that any magic, summoned or not, can not exist inside this Anti-Magic Field.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.

Me personally I favor the "Anti-Magic Field suppresses all magic period" way of thinking.

if the fire created came from an instantaneous duration magic effect like create water, then yes it can be hurled in. the magic ended after its appearance and now it simply exists. if it has a duration then it is held there by magic and can be effected by amf. if it is from an evocation effect it doesnt work in the amf. this is how amf works

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 10:57 AM
Summons are a type of conjuration effect, but not the only type of conjuration effect.

The Orb spells work because they are 1) instantaneous, and 2) creation. You are creating something, not summoning it.

Disclaimer: I think that the orbs being shot into AMFs is stupid and a bad design choice, but that's the rules behind it.

Summons specifically do disappear if they enter an AMF, unlike Called creatures (also summoned by a Conjuration effect).

Edit:


Nothing about parts. Personally I'd rule that they'd have to fully enter the field, but RAW it is either all of them disappear or none of them, nothing about parts of them vanishing.

last line in amf specifically stated about monsters whos parts are outside the amf have those parts outside the amf not affected. summoned mosnter parts effected are going to go away and cease to be.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Thefurmonger
2010-08-26, 11:06 AM
I really don't see where there is even a question here.

The summon by RAW never leaves his square. he never enters the AMF.

Now I fully agree that is REALLY, REALLY stupid. and we all know that to hit someone you have to...... well...... actually reach over and hit them.

But just as you can't ready an action to hit the dragons tail as it is about to hit you. by RAW this is how it works.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 11:09 AM
but the summon's arms by raw wink out existance. you cant grapple without arms. the parts outside the field are affected yet the parts inside *that which may be doing the hitting and grappling* are affected by amf.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 11:12 AM
I really don't see where there is even a question here.

The summon by RAW never leaves his square. he never enters the AMF.

Now I fully agree that is REALLY, REALLY stupid. and we all know that to hit someone you have to...... well...... actually reach over and hit them.

But just as you can't ready an action to hit the dragons tail as it is about to hit you. by RAW this is how it works.

But his/her/its limbs and the weapons that were conjured with it DO enter the area of effect of the AMF when it makes an attack against the PC inside the field.

And I'm pretty sure its been previously established that a summoned Pixie can't take pot shots against someone in an AMF from outside of it because its weapons blink out as soon as they enter the AoE, so they same applies to something with reach swinging at someone inside one from outside it.


Also, by RAW, the limbs making the grapple are the target of the incurred AoO. The grapple rules do not require the grappled to threaten the grappler to make the AoO, so if the AE allows them an AoO, they make it against the limbs of its opponent. Grapple rules have no caveats that creatures with reach don't incur an AoO when making a grapple without the necessary feats against creatures that don't also have equal or greater reach.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 11:14 AM
see the AoO question makes no sense to me. just as one cannot be grappled by nonexistant hands nor can on attack those said hands in the case of a grapple.

you cannot be hit nor can you hit somethig n which isn't even there.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 11:19 AM
attack of opportunity

A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Cover prevents attacks of opportunity. Attacks of opportunity are always limited to attackers who are in squares that you can reach. The touch attack to start a grapple is no exception to this.
Please quote relevant page number in the PHB for this for this. I just went and re-read the page on AoOs (p. 137) and it never said what was written in the embedded quote.

If I am to make a rebuttal I need to read the exact wording carefully.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-26, 11:19 AM
By RAW, the arms never enter the AMF.

An attack into a square is not the same as entering that square.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 11:25 AM
By RAW, the arms never enter the AMF.

An attack into a square is not the same as entering that square.

Except an AMF doesn't concern squares anywhere in its description. It's a 10 foot emanation from the caster that isn't explicitly stated to interact with the square based combat system.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 11:33 AM
By RAW, the arms never enter the AMF.

An attack into a square is not the same as entering that square.

to grapple you need to grab and hold your target, parts of a summoned monster cannot be within 5 feet of him or they cease to exist. by raw the fact they can hold him means they are in the amf even if the monster summoned as a whole is not. if their parts cannot enter 5 ft radius, they cannot grab and or hold, which means a grapple cannot even be begun

Frosty
2010-08-26, 11:33 AM
I still haven't found the quote that Curmudgeon brought up, but after having done more research, I have come up with the following in support of the notion that one CAN indeed AoO for Grappling attempts even without enough reach. It's all in the language.

First, read the middle of the left column of page 135 in the PHB under the short section called "Attacks." It says, "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you."

Now go to the page 140, where the book talks about spellcasting. In the middle of the page in the right hand column, under the heading "Attacks of Opportunity," it says, "Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies."

Finally go the page 156, with all the info on Grappling. Near the top of the right-hand column under the heading "Step 1: Attack of Opportunity," it says, "You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple."

See the difference? See what's missing in the rules about grappling? If they wanted you to need to threaten in order to make an AoO on a grappler, they'd have said so.

Grommen
2010-08-26, 11:34 AM
I missed the RAW disclaimer. Never seen a game run that way, never will. Carry on.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 11:47 AM
Show me the part in RAW that says that your limbs must enter an opponents square to attack, otherwise by RAW the summoned creature is fine to attack inside of an AMF. Logically the creature(or at least part of it) has to be in the AMF to attack someone within, but RAW never says anywhere that your limbs enter an opponents square to make an attack. I will always house rule this away but this thread is about raw.

About AoO on grappling, just because they provoke doesn't mean you automatically get to take it. AoO rules specifically state that if you cannot reach to target then you get no attack. Grappling rules state you provoke, it doesn't say you get one no matter what. What if the target of the grapple is unconscious? Some people in this thread (by their interpretation of grappling rules) would say that the unconscious character would still get the AoO; I put forth that all rules for making AoO apply to those provoked from grapples. If you choose to ignore the rules of reach then you are setting a precedent to ignore other rules of AoO in the

@frosty: unfortunately by RAW exception does not prove the rule.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 11:50 AM
Huh?

You're proposing that the rules expect a monster with natural attacks to deal damage without ever making physical contact with its target?

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the rules never mentioned that weapons enter the space of their victims in order to strike them because it's obvious and there was no need to point it out? I mean, if something can't be assumed to exist in the game unless described in the rules, then by RAW the sun does not rise, tying your shoelaces can be performed instantaneously, NPCs do not move their bowels, and people can't make babies.

Look, if it's possible to have a lengthy multi-sided debate on the resolution of a situation, then reasonable people ought to be able to agree that the rules are simply vague -- they don't fully address the specific situation at hand. Vague rules require interpetation.

Now, if there are two competing interpretations of the RAW, and one of them is absurd and ridiculous on its face, while the other seems reasonable and plausible, doesn't it *naturally follow* that the reasonable and plausible one should be used?

Edited: to be level-headed and civil.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 11:51 AM
To start a grapple, you need to make a touch attack. Not a ranged touch attack, a touch attack. This means you're touching them. If they're completely in the AMF, you must reach into it to touch them.

Focusing on the abstracted nature of attacks entirely ignores that a touch attack requires touching. So no, it doesn't work, even by RAW.


Kudos on managing to involve antimagic fields, AoOs, and grapple rules all in one problem though. If you manage to add in ToB, incarnum, and epic spellcasting, you'll have the perfect storm, resulting in so many complicated rulesets that nobody will be able to agree with anyone.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 11:52 AM
AoO rules specifically state that if you cannot reach to target then you get no attack.Please quote me the page number and section.
Kudos on managing to involve antimagic fields, AoOs, and grapple rules all in one problem though. If you manage to add in ToB, incarnum, and epic spellcasting, you'll have the perfect storm, resulting in so many complicated rulesets that nobody will be able to agree with anyone.
Since it's grappling, maybe we can involve Monks too? :smallbiggrin:

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 11:52 AM
Show me the part in RAW that says that your limbs must enter an opponents square to attack, otherwise by RAW the summoned creature is fine to attack inside of an AMF. Logically the creature(or at least part of it) has to be in the AMF to attack someone within, but RAW never says anywhere that your limbs enter an opponents square to make an attack. I will always house rule this away but this thread is about raw.

About AoO on grappling, just because they provoke doesn't mean you automatically get to take it. AoO rules specifically state that if you cannot reach to target then you get no attack. Grappling rules state you provoke, it doesn't say you get one no matter what. What if the target of the grapple is unconscious? Some people in this thread (by their interpretation of grappling rules) would say that the unconscious character would still get the AoO; I put forth that all rules for making AoO apply to those provoked from grapples. If you choose to ignore the rules of reach then you are setting a precedent to ignore other rules of AoO in the

Your counter arguments don't work because:

A) AMF is an emanation that is never stated to be measured in squares and we're not talking about attacking into squares.

B) An unconscious character can not take an AoO because of the action economy. We're not talking about Action Economy, we're talking about how grappling rules specifically say you don't need to threaten the grappler to make the AoO and thus you don't need to have reach on them either since their limbs are the target of the AoO and are what are doing the grappling.

Also, Specific trumps General. This is a common, well known RAW rule when it comes to anything, not only grappling.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:07 PM
only the parts of the summoned monster not in the area of the amf is unaffected by the amf.
and at a 10 ft radius (my mistake with 5 ft earlier) any parts of the summoned monster within 10 ft (not squares, feet) "wink out of existance" as per amf's RAW. so raw states that any parts within 10 feet (likes those that may touch the mages who is in the center of the amf) are affected by the amf and cease to exist untill they leave the amf or the amf duration ends.

Douglas
2010-08-26, 12:07 PM
grappling rules specifically say you don't need to threaten the grappler to make the AoO and thus you don't need to have reach on them either since their limbs are the target of the AoO and are what are doing the grappling.
They do? Where?

Step 1

Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple)

I see a statement that you provoke an AoO. I do not see any statement about whether this provocation ignores the normal restrictions on attacks of opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttackofOpport unity) or melee reach. In the absence of such a statement, the default is that the normal rule still applies wherever possible without contradictions.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 12:08 PM
The rules for AoO were already quoted in this thread, and since I don't have the book in front of me you will just have to scroll up or even *gasp* go back a page ( I'm at work, posting from my phone, cut me some slack lol)

@jiriku: not saying I liked it I'm just trying to interpret the rules as written.

And I'm not talking about action economy I'm just drawing an comparison to rules of AoO. Since reach is normally a factor for regular attacks of opportunity ( as is consioucness) but reach is ignored in makin an AoO as part of a grapple, I was drawing a comparison to consciousness being ignored. Its ok though, you always have to expect someone to misunderstand your point when arguing on the internet.

Edit for clarity

jiriku
2010-08-26, 12:20 PM
OK, fair complaint. I'll chill.

So, given that natural weapons involve cutting, mashing and slashing the target, how is that injury achieved if by RAW the attacker does not touch the target? Because what you're proposing is essentially:

"The summoned troll stands outside of your anti-magic field, waves his hands aggressively, and gnashes his teeth in your general direction. Claw marks and bite wounds appear on your body."

RAW, attacks must hit the target to deal damage. That's why it's called "rolling to hit." I would suggest that in this situation it's relevant to consider the very label of "to-hit roll" as a rule: attacks must hit their target to deal damage. Any situation that renders it impossible for an attack to hit the target eliminates the possibility of the attack being successful. Self-evidently, a weapon (such as a claw) must be capable of physically touching the target in order for it to "hit" (after all, that's what hitting means). A summoned creature's natural weapons are not physically capable of touching a wizard in an anti-magic field. So, by RAW, an attacker's weapons must physically touch a target because they must "hit" it, and summoned troll cannot "hit" because it cannot touch its target.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:27 PM
OK, fair complaint. I'll chill.
If you're suggesting the summoned troll can deal wounds without any part of his body coming within 5 feet of his victim, I'd like to see you cite some rules that explain why that extraordinary state of affairs is considered normal.

nonsummoned polearms/ranged weaponry.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 12:27 PM
They do? Where?

Step 1

Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple)

I see a statement that you provoke an AoO. I do not see any statement about whether this provocation ignores the normal restrictions on attacks of opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttackofOpport unity) or melee reach. In the absence of such a statement, the default is that the normal rule still applies wherever possible without contradictions.
Normally by the time you reach the decision whether to make an AoO it's moot whether you have reach or not because if you didn't have reach you wouldn't cause the target to provoke in the FIRST PLACE. But once someone has provoked, then you get the choice to hit. Grappling just goes straight to provoking, and that's INTENTIONAL.

Normal AoO sequence:
1) Monster does something distracting
2) Check if you can reach monster. If yes, monster provokes.
3) Decide whether to make an AoO or not.

Grappling works like this:
1) Monster attempts Touch Attack for grapple. Does it have Improved Grapple? If no, monster provokes.
2) Decide whether to make an AoO or not.

Basically it's like the Tome of Battle rules for learning maneuvers. Once you know a maneuver it doesn't matter if at a later time you don't meet its prereqs for learning it. You already know it and that's that.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 12:29 PM
nonsummoned polearms/ranged weaponry.

I would buy that. A summoned creature could reasonably use non-summoned reach weapons or ranged/thrown weapons to affect a target in an AMF.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 12:30 PM
I would buy that. A summoned creature could reasonably use non-summoned reach weapons or ranged/thrown weapons to affect a target in an AMF.
Correct. The ranged/thrown weapons would need to be non-summoned as well, just to clarify for everyone.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 12:31 PM
see the AoO question makes no sense to me.RAW is not about making sense, that's RAMS.

Also, I once more repeat that something provoking an AoO doesn't mean that you would automatically, always get to make the attack. Though I wonder why I keep repeating it when everyone just ignores it. A bad case of SIWOTI, clearly.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:33 PM
I would buy that. A summoned creature could reasonably use non-summoned reach weapons or ranged/thrown weapons to affect a target in an AMF.

yup a troll throwing rocks and small trees can still do damage outside the amf. or if the summoner can instantaneously conjure a large weapon that has no duration (which is how create water and the orb spells are examples of what can n the amf. ) just so long as the hands dont get in the radius he could keep poking at the amf caster

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 12:35 PM
OK, fair complaint. I'll chill.

So, given that natural weapons involve cutting, mashing and slashing the target, how is that injury achieved if by RAW the attacker does not touch the target? Because what you're proposing is essentially:

"The summoned troll stands outside of your anti-magic field, waves his hands aggressively, and gnashes his teeth in your general direction. Claw marks and bite wounds appear on your body."

RAW, attacks must hit the target to deal damage. That's why it's called "rolling to hit." I would suggest that in this situation it's relevant to consider the very label of "to-hit roll" as a rule. Attacks must hit their target to deal damage. Any situation that renders it impossible for an attack to hit the target eliminates the possibility of the attack being successful. Self-evidently, a weapon (such as a claw) must be capable of physically touching the target in order for it to "hit" (after all, that's what hitting means). A summoned creature's natural weapons are not physically capable of touching a wizard in an anti-magic field. So, by RAW, an attacker's weapons must physically touch a target because they must "hit" it, and summoned troll cannot "hit" because it cannot touch its target.

Maybe the wizard leans out of his amf to get hit then pops back in? No, I'm just trying to expose the disparities of RAW. Would I actually play in a game where my demonstrated points were rules? {Scrubbed} I just tried to point out that inowhere in the rules does it say anything about my limbs leaving my square during an attack. Not that I believe any of that but someone has got to play devils advocate.


{Scrubbed}

Tyger
2010-08-26, 12:37 PM
just so long as the hands dont get in the radius he could keep poking at the amf caster

Can you cite the rule that says his hands enter the space? Rule, not common sense. Please post the rule that says this happens.

Of course its common sense, but that has no place in a RAW discussion.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:38 PM
RAW is not about making sense, that's RAMS.

Also, I once more repeat that something provoking an AoO doesn't mean that you would automatically, always get to make the attack. Though I wonder why I keep repeating it when everyone just ignores it. A bad case of SIWOTI, clearly.

no, the question makes no sense bcause by raw the grapple and the aoo cannot happen. if neither case can happen then arguing over what provokes an attack of opportunity muddles the fact one cannot be had since the monster cannot provoke one in the first place unless the amf caster has a ranged weapon and the monster is distracted about suddenly having no arms.

in that case I'd say no anyway as a monster is not exactly that defenseless or distracted.

lesser_minion
2010-08-26, 12:40 PM
I'd almost certainly rule that a natural attack by a summoned creature or any into an antimagic field is a case of the magical effect being 'brought within' and 'used within' the antimagic field -- i.e. it gets suppressed.

As for "common sense has no place in a RAW discussion", that's not true at all. If it's blatantly obvious what is happening, then it can be considered.

Note that you can poke things that won't disappear into the field without penalty, however -- this might include equipment, if the equipment wasn't itself conjured.

Cogidubnus
2010-08-26, 12:41 PM
My 2 cp is that, if we're being sensible, a summoned monster cannot enter an AMF, so its attacks cannot affect anything inside it. The monster can use a longspear/other reach weapon/ranged weapon to attack inside it though.

RAW, the monster can, simply because RAW at no point has the monster actually entering the squares it attacks, even though it is strongly implied that it does.

"It is strongly implied that I am punching you!". Ah, I love that show.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 12:42 PM
no, the question makes no sense bcause by raw the grapple and the aoo cannot happen.Grapple can happen (though the summoned monster would wink out when it enters AMF, as per the rules), the AoO can't.


if neither case can happen then arguing over what provokes an attack of opportunity muddles the fact one cannot be had since the monster cannot provoke oneSure it can. Summoned creatures only wink out when they enter AMF, but you don't have to enter anything to make a touch attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 12:42 PM
Please quote relevant page number in the PHB for this for this.
Player's Handbook page 305.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 12:43 PM
Also, I once more repeat that something provoking an AoO doesn't mean that you would automatically, always get to make the attack. Though I wonder why I keep repeating it when everyone just ignores it. A bad case of SIWOTI, clearly.
AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? Pray tell. Please let me read it directly from the source so I can be satisfied.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 12:45 PM
Player's Handbook page 305.
Yes. That is the *general* rule. Specific trumps general however. I have shown that in other cases the rules specifically says you provoke from threatening people, but in the Grapple rules, it leaves that out. So either that is an editing error on the part of WoTC or they left it out intentionally becuase y'know...it make sense that way.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:45 PM
Can you cite the rule that says his hands enter the space? Rule, not common sense. Please post the rule that says this happens.

Of course its common sense, but that has no place in a RAW discussion.


under amf any summoned monsters that enter the field wink out of existance when they enter the field
also under amf any part of the monster not in the amf is not affected by the amf

if no part of the monster can get within the 10ft radius of the caster and continue to existin that area, then the second the hands enter the area, they cease to be and the polearm falls to the ground.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 12:47 PM
Maybe the wizard leans out of his amf to get hit then pops back in?

I get the joke. :smallyuk:

But I think that exposes a RAW method by which in certain situations in which the hypothetical summoned troll could defend himself. If the wizard in the AMF happens to have natural reach that extends outside of the AMF and is attacking the troll, the troll could ready an action to attack when the wizard makes his attack. Since by definition, if the troll has to poke his arms into the wizard's space to attack, the wizard must do the same to attack the troll.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:49 PM
Grapple can happen (though the summoned monster would wink out when it enters AMF, as per the rules), the AoO can't.
Sure it can. Summoned creatures only wink out when they enter AMF, but you don't have to enter anything to make a touch attack.

if the parts of the summoned monster do the grappling, they have to get within 10 feet of the amf caster to do the grappling. that which is within that area as per amf is under the effects of amf. the remaining body might not wink out (as in have enough common sense to pull back and regain its limbs), but as written in the spell this is how it works.

Master_Rahl22
2010-08-26, 12:49 PM
RAW: Monster never enters squares of AMF, monster can attack caster inside the AMF.

RAMS (and probably RAI): Monster's arm disappears when it tries to put it inside the AMF to attack caster, monster jumps back and arm reappears.

I don't see how there's any argument here. There is no rule that says anything about the monster, or parts of it, entering the square of what it's attacking. Ergo, there is nothing that prevents a summoned creature with reach from attacking something inside an AMF.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 12:50 PM
Because what you're proposing is essentially:

"The summoned troll stands outside of your anti-magic field, waves his hands aggressively, and gnashes his teeth in your general direction. Claw marks and bite wounds appear on your body."
Yes, this is pretty much what the simplified rules for the D&D combat system require. Which is no more unreasonable than that you can't sneak up behind someone, because there's no "behind" direction in D&D: all creatures look in all directions simultaneously, and the only way to sneak up on someone is to have cover or concealment.

It's a system that simplifies parts of reality for game-play purposes. Those simplifications obviously don't model reality faithfully. Please just accept the limitations and learn to work within the system.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 12:51 PM
AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? Pray tell. Please let me read it directly from the source so I can be satisfied.I did mention them when I first made the point:

AoO rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm): "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round."

Douse the Flames (ToB pg. 91).


Both examples of situations where you can't take an AoO even though someone provokes one.

[Edit]:
if the parts of the summoned monster do the grappling, they have to get within 10 feet of the amf caster to do the grappling. that which is within that area as per amf is under the effects of amf. the remaining body might not wink out (as in have enough common sense to pull back and regain its limbs), but as written in the spell this is how it works.Summoned creatures only wink out if they enter the area of AFM. Grapple starts with a touch attack, in which the grappler and the grapleé both stay where they are. After that, and the initial grapple check, have been dealt with, only then will the monster move to the AMF (and wink out).

Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 12:52 PM
I have shown that in other cases the rules specifically says you provoke from threatening people, but in the Grapple rules, it leaves that out.
So what? Those other cases are just reminders of the usual rule. Absence of a reminder in no way constitutes an exception.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 12:53 PM
RAW: Monster never enters squares of AMF, monster can attack caster inside the AMF.

RAMS (and probably RAI): Monster's arm disappears when it tries to put it inside the AMF to attack caster, monster jumps back and arm reappears.

I don't see how there's any argument here. There is no rule that says anything about the monster, or parts of it, entering the square of what it's attacking. Ergo, there is nothing that prevents a summoned creature with reach from attacking something inside an AMF.
Oh Legendary brother of the Seeker, the vast majority of this thread is dedicated to arguing the merits of my assertion that the grappling rules support the idea of parts of a creature entering someone else's square as part of an attack.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 12:55 PM
I get the joke. :smallyuk:

But I think that exposes a RAW method by which in certain situations in which the hypothetical summoned troll could defend himself. If the wizard in the AMF happens to have natural reach that extends outside of the AMF and is attacking the troll, the troll could ready an action to attack when the wizard makes his attack. Since by definition, if the troll has to poke his arms into the wizard's space to attack, the wizard must do the same to attack the troll.

This makes sense.


Also Frosty, the exception doesn NOT prove the rule. Just because they left that part of the phrasing out it does not mean you get to ignore the rules about needing to be able to reach the target to make an AoO (phb 305 since you seem to need the rules for AoO quoted several times in a single thread)

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 12:57 PM
There is no rule that says anything about the monster, or parts of it, entering the square of what it's attacking. Ergo, there is nothing that prevents a summoned creature with reach from attacking something inside an AMF.

except for the actually wording of amf stating that only parts of the summoned monster not in the area of the amf are not effected by the amf. the parts that are within 10 ft of the caster are under its effects (in the case of summons "wink out" and thus can't be used to hit the caster of the amf or someone in that 10 ft area.

lesser_minion
2010-08-26, 01:00 PM
I've always ruled it differently, but in the SRD, the wording is quite clear that you provoke by performing a distracting action within a threatened area -- or, in other words.

With that in mind, it seems that if you 'provoke', then either it's already been established that you are threatened, or you are dealing with a special case where it is not necessary.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 01:00 PM
Oh Legendary brother of the Seeker, the vast majority of this thread is dedicated to arguing the merits of my assertion that the grappling rules support the idea of parts of a creature entering someone else's square as part of an attack.

actually the grapple rules specificallystate that entering the space is a consequence of maintaining a grapple, the initial initiation of the grapple may be in varyingsquares. but it still doesnt cange a summoned grappler can grapple something if any part within 10 ft of the amf caster winks out.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:02 PM
This makes sense.


Also Frosty, the exception doesn NOT prove the rule. Just because they left that part of the phrasing out it does not mean you get to ignore the rules about needing to be able to reach the target to make an AoO (phb 305 since you seem to need the rules for AoO quoted several times in a single thread)

And again, Specific trumps general.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 01:04 PM
I've always ruled it differently, but looking at the rules in the SRD, it seems pretty clear that being threatened is a pre-requisite to provoking for certain actions.

Or, in other words, you can theoretically provoke from an opponent who does not threaten you. If it says something like "you provoke from your target", then you do, whether they threaten or not.
That's what I've been saying, but others are saying that regardless of whether the target provokes, you STILL need reach to actually hit them. The only place that is suggested is in p305 of the PHB, and I'm not entirely convinced that Grappling isn't an intentional exception.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 01:04 PM
And again, Specific trumps general.And again, there is nothing Specific saying that you can attack an opponent outside of your reach. Said opponent can hook up an infinite loop of provoking Attacks of Opportunity (just to taunt you), but you'll never get to make a single one.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-26, 01:05 PM
From the online article Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a):
Because you must threaten your foe before you can make an attack of opportunity, it pays to examine what area you can threaten and when you threaten it.
There's no exception in the grapple rules ─ just a lack of a reminder of the usual rules for how AoOs work.

Douglas
2010-08-26, 01:06 PM
And again, Specific trumps general.
If the specific rule actually stated that reach and threatening are ignored, you would have a point. It does not. Instead, it doesn't mention the subject either way.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:09 PM
If the specific rule actually stated that reach and threatening are ignored, you would have a point. It does not. Instead, it doesn't mention the subject either way.

But that doesn't disprove my point. If anything, it throws the entire discussion into the realm of vagueness that requires RAMs or RAI to be used to finish the situation.

Unfortunately, the opposite side see this as meaning they're right.

Edit:

@Curm: Or it is meant to be an exception.

Again, there are no caveats in Grapple rules that say that a creature with reach does not provoke AoO when grappling against something that lacks equal or greater reach than itself.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 01:12 PM
And again, Specific trumps general.

I agree, but I maintain that the AoO rules are more specific in
their rules than grappling. The grappling rules sayvyou provoke an AoO. This might be too general for some so they open up the phb to page (frosty are you paying attention) 305 to look at the specific rules of AoO. The entry that tells you the exact rules of an AoO is way more specific than an entry for grappling that briefly cites AoO. Specific trumps general.

Edit: just got quad ninja'd... Or what do you guys call it around here, swordsaged?

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:12 PM
It's possible to provoke while surrounded by opponents, some of whom threaten you and some of whom do not. Only those opponents who are eligible to take the AoO you offer may do so.

This brings up an important point. The act of provoking is independent of the act of taking an AoO. It is possible for your opponent to offer you an AoO, but for you to fail to qualify to take it.

For example, if you attempt to grapple an unconconscious character, you provoke an AoO. The unconscious character, however, is not eligible to take the offered attack.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:13 PM
I agree, but I maintain that the AoO rules are more specific in their rules than grappling. The grappling rules sayvyou provoke an AoO. This might be too general for some so they open up the phb to page (frosty are you paying attention) 305 to look at the specific rules of AoO. The entry that tells you the exact rules of an AoO is way more specific than an entry for grappling that briefly cites AoO. Specific trumps general.

Erm...AoO Rules on AoO are the general.

How AoO works for grappling is the specific.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 01:16 PM
I agree, but I maintain that the AoO rules are more specific in their rules than grappling. The grappling rules sayvyou provoke an AoO. This might be too general for some so they open up the phb to page (frosty are you paying attention) 305 to look at the specific rules of AoO. The entry that tells you the exact rules of an AoO is way more specific than an entry for grappling that briefly cites AoO. Specific trumps general.
The joke is getting old now. Once Curm posted the page number I've gotten it.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled debating.

Tyger
2010-08-26, 01:16 PM
under amf any summoned monsters that enter the field wink out of existance when they enter the field
also under amf any part of the monster not in the amf is not affected by the amf

if no part of the monster can get within the 10ft radius of the caster and continue to existin that area, then the second the hands enter the area, they cease to be and the polearm falls to the ground.

Again, where is the rule? You can link it from the SRD if you'd prefer, or provide the page number from the book, please note which book if that's your choice.

Attacking does not require, RAW, any part of the attacker to enter any square or range increments or feet or anything. RAW, when you attack you stay in your own area. You do not enter other squares or areas.

For an example, when you have a critter stuck in an Evard's Tentacles area, right on the edge, if you step up beside him (you are outside the effected area) and smack him with a mace, do you have to save against the Evard's? Nope, because you are not in the area of the spell.

There is no reference anywhere that attacking another creature causes any part of you to enter their space / area / square / anything. If you can find the rule that says this happens, then you prove your point in the RAW discussion. You won the RAMS and the RAI discussion three pages ago, but the RAW discussion is the one we are having.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 01:26 PM
Erm...AoO Rules on AoO are the general.

How AoO works for grappling is the specific.

{Scrubbed}

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:27 PM
Again, where is the rule? You can link it from the SRD if you'd prefer, or provide the page number from the book, please note which book if that's your choice.


The first quote is from the SRD. The second is from dictionary.com. Bolded emphasis was added.


Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.


hit   –verb (used with object)
1. to deal a blow or stroke to: Hit the nail with the hammer.
2. to come against with an impact or collision, as a missile, a flying fragment, a falling body, or the like: The car hit the tree.
3. to reach with a missile, a weapon, a blow, or the like, as one throwing, shooting, or striking: Did the bullet hit him?
4. to succeed in striking: With his final shot he hit the mark.

Third proposal (I can't find RAW for it, perhaps someone can help if needed): Creatures occupy their squares.


So, it then follows:
1. RAW, a successful attack roll involves hitting the opponent.
2. By the definition of the word, "to hit" means to come against or strike. In other words, to touch.
3. RAW, a creature is located within its square.
4. Therefore, RAW, a successful attack roll requires the attacker to place its weapon in physical contact with the defender, within the defender's square.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 01:30 PM
So, it then follows:
1. RAW, a successful attack roll involves hitting the opponent.
2. By the definition of the word, "to hit" means to come against or strike. In other words, to touch.
3. RAW, a creature is located within its square.
4. Therefore, RAW, a successful attack roll requires the attacker to place its weapon in physical contact with the defender, within the defender's square.#2 is not RAW, so #4 does not follow. :smallamused:

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:31 PM
#2 is not RAW, so #4 does not follow. :smallamused:

/facepalms and crawls under his desk. :smallbiggrin:

Tyger
2010-08-26, 01:31 PM
@jiirku - Yes, absolutely, you won the fight that was over before it began, the RAMS and RAI discussion. But you can't provide an interpetation to discuss RAW. You need to cite a Rule.

Hitting doesn't say anything about entering a square in what you cited. The dictionary is handy for interpretation, but not for RAW.


#2 is not RAW, so #4 does not follow. :smallamused:

What I said, only more succinctly.

Thinker
2010-08-26, 01:32 PM
But that doesn't disprove my point. If anything, it throws the entire discussion into the realm of vagueness that requires RAMs or RAI to be used to finish the situation.

Unfortunately, the opposite side see this as meaning they're right.

Edit:

@Curm: Or it is meant to be an exception.

Again, there are no caveats in Grapple rules that say that a creature with reach does not provoke AoO when grappling against something that lacks equal or greater reach than itself.

In what world do you assume that the regular rules don't apply when they simply do not say that they do? To think of it logically, the rules say if you are making a melee attack, you must threaten the opponent. The attack of opportunity rules say that once provoked, make a melee attack. If you cannot threaten the opponent, you cannot make the melee attack. It does not say "once provoked, make a melee attack, regardless of threatened area."

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 01:35 PM
Again, where is the rule? You can link it from the SRD if you'd prefer, or provide the page number from the book, please note which book if that's your choice.

Attacking does not require, RAW, any part of the attacker to enter any square or range increments or feet or anything. RAW, when you attack you stay in your own area. You do not enter other squares or areas.

For an example, when you have a critter stuck in an Evard's Tentacles area, right on the edge, if you step up beside him (you are outside the effected area) and smack him with a mace, do you have to save against the Evard's? Nope, because you are not in the area of the spell.

There is no reference anywhere that attacking another creature causes any part of you to enter their space / area / square / anything. If you can find the rule that says this happens, then you prove your point in the RAW discussion. You won the RAMS and the RAI discussion three pages ago, but the RAW discussion is the one we are having.

I already linked the amf spell description which matched phb pg 200, if you want to get into the fact natural weapons are a prt of the monster that is ummoned we can also break out linking that fact in raw and the spell is not listed in squares its listed in foot radius. you can argue about not entering the tactical grid space, which is meant to help difine areas in which a person is persons are standing.

natural weapons are part of creature http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons
only parts of a monster not in amf not affected by amf http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm
need to be able to be able to grab and hold a target to grapple http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grappleChecks

the point of raw showing no natural or summoned weapon of a summoned monster can hit the caster of the amf was proven by raw ages ago. its you people trying to argue grid use & aoo to muddy the waters. as per raw, a summoned monster or parts of it will not exist in the amf.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:35 PM
In what world do you assume that the regular rules don't apply when they simply do not say that they do? To think of it logically, the rules say if you are making a melee attack, you must threaten the opponent. The attack of opportunity rules say that once provoked, make a melee attack. If you cannot threaten the opponent, you cannot make the melee attack. It does not say "once provoked, make a melee attack, regardless of threatened area."

Specific trumps General.

Thinker
2010-08-26, 01:36 PM
Third proposal (I can't find RAW for it, perhaps someone can help if needed): Creatures occupy their squares.


So, it then follows:
1. RAW, a successful attack roll involves hitting the opponent.
2. By the definition of the word, "to hit" means to come against or strike. In other words, to touch.
3. RAW, a creature is located within its square.
4. Therefore, RAW, a successful attack roll requires the attacker to place its weapon in physical contact with the defender, within the defender's square.



Attack Rolls

An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.
So you hit and deal damage. What does "hit and deal damage" mean?



Damage Rolls

If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage. Roll the appropriate damage for your weapon. Damage is deducted from the target’s current hit points.

That's all there is to it. Hitting is simply part of doing damage. It does not mean there was any physical contact. I'm sorry it doesn't follow the real-world, but the real-world has no implications on this system.

lesser_minion
2010-08-26, 01:37 PM
From the online article Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a):
There's no exception in the grapple rules ─ just a lack of a reminder of the usual rules for how AoOs work.

This is basically a blog post, not a page in a rule book. It doesn't present rules, or quote them in their entirety, it merely discusses them. At best it's a clue as to the RAI, and even then it could be easily argued that he just couldn't be bothered to qualify the statement you quoted.



This brings up an important point. The act of provoking is independent of the act of taking an AoO. It is possible for your opponent to offer you an AoO, but for you to fail to qualify to take it.

Bizarrely enough, no. 'Provoking' an attack of opportunity is the grant itself*. By RAW, if you provoke an attack of opportunity, you've either already met the requirement to threaten, or you've short-circuited it.

The rules even define a 'distracting action' as one that provokes if you perform it while threatened.

And here's the point where RAW vs. RAI comes up. It doesn't seem to have been intended, but it's easy to come up with scenarios -- including grappling -- where being able to do this actually does make sense.

I don't want to carry on a debate about this, so I'm just going to make a note of it for when I'm homebrewing, advise others to do the same, and leave it there.

* Check the SRD on attacks of opportunity, if you're unclear on where this comes from.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:39 PM
@jiirku - Yes, absolutely, you won the fight that was over before it began, the RAMS and RAI discussion. But you can't provide an interpetation to discuss RAW. You need to cite a Rule.

Hitting doesn't say anything about entering a square in what you cited. The dictionary is handy for interpretation, but not for RAW.


Umm, dood. The rules say a successful attack roll results in a hit. Hit means touch. The defender is in his square. The rules say that a successful attack roll results in touching the defender while he is in his square. It's not even like it's a cost you could somehow avoid paying. RAW, touching the defender is an effect of making a successful attack roll.



So you hit and deal damage. What does "hit and deal damage" mean?

That's all there is to it. Hitting is simply part of doing damage. It does not mean there was any physical contact. I'm sorry it doesn't follow the real-world, but the real-world has no implications on this system.

Umm, pardon if I seem confused. Hitting has an established and generally accepted meaning, which includes physical contact. Unless a word is specifically redefined in the rules somwhere, it has its generally accepted meaning. To suggest otherwise is untenable, and if I may be a little tongue-in-cheek, has no RAW support.

Thinker
2010-08-26, 01:40 PM
Specific trumps General.

And it does not specifically state anything about this. Wishing it to be true and constantly repeating yourself does not make it true.

The grapple rules say that by starting a grapple you provoke an attack of opportunity. The AoO rules say to make a melee attack. The melee attack rules say:


Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).


No where in any of the rules does it say you get to ignore reach to make your attack of opportunity.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 01:43 PM
Umm, dood. The rules say a successful attack roll results in a hit. Hit means touch. The defender is in his square. The rules say that a successful attack roll results in touching the defender while he is in his square. It's not even like it's a cost you could somehow avoid paying. RAW, touching the defender is an effect of making a successful attack roll.Touch, hit, it doesn't matter, because you don't enter the area by RAW. Only common sense suggests you can't touch something without being there, but there is no rules support for that.

Leaving or entering an area are rules terms. Common sense doesn't belong to discussion on what the RAW says, only to the discussion on what to do with the RAW.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:45 PM
And it does not specifically state anything about this. Wishing it to be true and constantly repeating yourself does not make it true.

The grapple rules say that by starting a grapple you provoke an attack of opportunity. The AoO rules say to make a melee attack. The melee attack rules say:


No where in any of the rules does it say you get to ignore reach to make your attack of opportunity.

And ignoring my counter arguments and continually pressing your own as the only valid and true interpretation does not make it true either.

And no where in the rules, as I've said several times, is there a Caveat in grappling that a creature with reach does not provoke AoOs when attempting to grapple a creature that lacks equal or greater reach.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 01:47 PM
And no where in the rules, as I've said several times, is there a Caveat in grappling that a creature with reach does not provoke AoOs when attempting to grapple a creature that lacks equal or greater reach.And nowhere in the rules is there a caveat that says you can make a melee attack against a creature outside your reach (whether they provoke or not).

Or can you point out where such a caveat is?

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:51 PM
Only common sense suggests you can't touch something without being there, but there is no rules support for that.

No, I'm pretty sure that there's more than common sense invovled. The definition of the word "touch" includes the concept of physical proximity.

Again, I kind of feel odd that I even have to cite this, but here's the definition of the word.


touch   –verb (used with object)
1. to put the hand, finger, etc., on or into contact with (something) to feel it: He touched the iron cautiously.
2. to come into contact with and perceive (something), as the hand or the like does.
3. to bring (the hand, finger, etc., or something held) into contact with something: She touched a match to the papers.
4. to give a slight tap or pat to with the hand, finger, etc.; strike or hit gently or lightly.
5. to come into or be in contact with.

So once again, by RAW a successful attack results in hitting. Hitting involves physical contact. It's what the word means.
And once again, there is no RAW support for the proposal that words don't, by default, have their normal English meanings.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:53 PM
And nowhere in the rules is there a caveat that says you can make a melee attack against a creature outside your reach (whether they provoke or not).

Or can you point out where such a caveat is?

As someone already stated, RAW doesn't support either of our arguments.

Grappling specifically mentions that you don't need to threaten your attempted grappler.

Rules on threatening and provoking AoO also state that the one provoking it must be with in your reach. A spellcaster casting a spell outside of your reach does not provoke an AoO against you.

So either Grappling is a "Specific Trumps General" or was an editting error and that caveat I mentioned is an unwritten rule.

But since we can't, by RAW, prove one way or the other (since by saying it swings one way you're totally invalidating the possibility of it being the other), this falls into the realm of RAW being too vague by itself without RAMs or RAI.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 01:54 PM
This is basically a blog post, not a page in a rule book. It doesn't present rules, or quote them in their entirety, it merely discusses them. At best it's a clue as to the RAI, and even then it could be easily argued that he just couldn't be bothered to qualify the statement you quoted.



Bizarrely enough, no. 'Provoking' an attack of opportunity is the grant itself. By RAW, if you provoke an attack of opportunity, you've either already met the requirement to threaten, or you've short-circuited it
The rules even define a 'distracting action' as one that provokes if you perform it while threatened
.

Please provide source for your first statement. The part where provoking means you automatically get to take the attack regardless of any other conditions.

Chen
2010-08-26, 01:56 PM
And ignoring my counter arguments and continually pressing your own as the only valid and true interpretation does not make it true either.

And no where in the rules, as I've said several times, is there a Caveat in grappling that a creature with reach does not provoke AoOs when attempting to grapple a creature that lacks equal or greater reach.

How can you say the absence of a rule immediately implies the rule doesn't apply? I mean it doesn't say I can heal to full after it attempts to grapple me, so why can't I?

Omission of details can never be said to trump rules that limit that same case. Otherwise I could say that each spell description never mentions that I can only cast this spell if I first had it memorized. So why can't I just cast any spell I know? Because the GENERAL section on spellcasting provides the reason. Yet the SPECIFIC spell section doesn't suddenly override this.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 01:57 PM
Please provide source for your first statement. The part where provoking means you automatically get to take the attack regardless of any other conditions.

Lesser most likely means the Action Economy allowing.

It stupefies me why people keep bringing up the Action Economy of AoOs when that's never been any point in this discussion.

Edit: @Chen: Please don't strawman me.

Specific trumps General, this is always the case. All other combat actions (like attacking and casting spells) mention in their explanation that a target needs to threaten them to get an AoO.

Grappling on the other hand doesn't. At all.

So either my side is correct or the other side is correct but neither is supported by RAW because its vague on this.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 01:57 PM
fine using grid logic to interpret raw

a monster with 10ft reach is 2 squares away
amf has a range of 10ft or 2squares using grid logic
for a monster with 10ft reach to attack it most be two squares away or in amf and thus the point is moot

a monster with a polearm that is not summoned can double its reach (4 squares) and stab at the amfer repeatedly.


using raw without grid logic, parts of the monster that enter the 10 ft radius are effected by the amf and if they are summoned wink out of existance untill they leave the amf or the amf expires. using somethign not summoned by magic without an instantaneous duration to stab more than 10ft will work.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 01:59 PM
Lesser most likely means the Action Economy allowing.

It stupefies me why people keep bringing up the Action Economy of AoOs when that's never been any point in this discussion.They're examples of situations where someone provokes an AoO, but you can't take it.

You haven't given any examples of situations where one could attack a target outside of one's range.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:01 PM
They're examples of situations where someone provokes an AoO, but you can't take it.

You haven't given any examples of situations where one could attack a target outside of one's range.

Because you can't.

As its been said constantly, specific trumps general. Grappling, because of my side's reasoning or an editing error which meant your side's reasoning, is different than other combat actions.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 02:05 PM
Grappling specifically mentions that you don't need to threaten your attempted grappler.


It SO does not state that. All it does is omit mentioning reach. Omission does not mean you get to ignore it. Since it was omitted we look tp the specific rules of AoO. For the last freaking time, exception DOES NOT prove the rule, not in raw.

Also, not once have I mentioned action economy so please stop bringing it up. He posted a very outlandish claim and I wanted source. I want to see the excerpt from RAW that provoking automatically means a character can automatically make an attack (AE aside).

Greenish
2010-08-26, 02:05 PM
Because you can't.I can't do what? :smallconfused:

I can give you several other situations to support my position.

As its been said constantly, specific trumps general. Grappling, because of my side's reasoning or an editing error which meant your side's reasoning, is different than other combat actions.I don't know about sides, but Specific can keep trumping generals until the army is a complete mess, and that doesn't affect my point at all. :smallcool:

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:08 PM
I can't do what? :smallconfused:

I can give you several other situations to support my position.
I don't know about sides, but Specific can keep trumping generals until the army is a complete mess, and that doesn't affect my point at all. :smallcool:

Because you can't attack a target outside one's range (except with a ranged attack or ranged touch attack).

jiriku
2010-08-26, 02:09 PM
All other combat actions (like attacking and casting spells) mention in their explanation that a target needs to threaten them to get an AoO.

Not true. Drinking a potion, for example, doesn't state that that you must be threaten a target to claim an AoO. It simply states: you draw an AoO, and then goes into great detail to describe what you can do with that AoO.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:11 PM
Not true. Drinking a potion, for example, doesn't state that that you must be threaten a target to claim an AoO. It simply states: you draw an AoO, and then goes into great detail to describe what you can do with that AoO.

But if you don't threaten or have reach to the target, no AoO is provoked.

Douglas
2010-08-26, 02:14 PM
Specific trumps General, this is always the case. All other combat actions (like attacking and casting spells) mention in their explanation that a target needs to threaten them to get an AoO.

Grappling on the other hand doesn't. At all.

So either my side is correct or the other side is correct but neither is supported by RAW because its vague on this.
Exactly. It doesn't mention it. That means that there is no specific rule in this case to trump the general rule. Specific does trump general, but the specific rule must be explicitly stated in order for that to happen. The best you have managed to show is an ambiguous possible inference from comparison with similar specific rules, which is a very far cry short of the explicit override required for Specific Trumps General to come into play.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:16 PM
Exactly. It doesn't mention it. That means that there is no specific rule in this case to trump the general rule. Specific does trump general, but the specific rule must be explicitly stated in order for that to happen. The best you have managed to show is an ambiguous possible inference from comparison with similar specific rules, which is a very far cry short of the explicit override required for Specific Trumps General to come into play.

But the lack of does not either automatically mean the general is still in effect. It simply means that area is vague. And vague areas need to be defined by RAMs and RAI, not RAW.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 02:17 PM
But if you don't threaten or have reach to the target, no AoO is provoked.

Not true. The rules qualify the use of potions in many ways, but they do not state that AoOs are only provoked if opponents are available and threatening. The provocation exists in a vacuum without regard to the numbers and capabilities of opponents, or even their presence or absence.


Activation
Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. A successful attack (including grappling attacks) against the character forces a Concentration check (as for casting a spell). If the character fails this check, she cannot drink the potion. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container.

A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil. Because of this, incorporeal creatures cannot use potions or oils.

Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion. The potion must be swallowed. Any corporeal creature can use an oil.

A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 02:18 PM
But if you don't threaten or have reach to the target, no AoO is provoked.
Which is exactly his point. The rules far drinking a potion do not mention reach or threatened squared, this does not mean that we ignore reach and threatened squares.

Likewise, grappling makes no mention of reach or threatened squares, yet you insist that you CAN ignore reach and threatened squares. Do you see what's happening here?

Douglas
2010-08-26, 02:19 PM
But the lack of does not either automatically mean the general is still in effect. It simply means that area is vague. And vague areas need to be defined by RAMs and RAI, not RAW.
No, the general rule being in effect is exactly what the lack of a specific rule means. This is a basic foundation of the entire system, and without it the very existence of general rules is practically meaningless.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 02:28 PM
Because you can't attack a target outside one's range (except with a ranged attack or ranged touch attack).Exactly! :smallbiggrin:

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:31 PM
Exactly! :smallbiggrin:

But that's why it's Specific Trumps General.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 02:32 PM
But that's why it's Specific Trumps General.But there's no Speficic to trump that general. :smallwink:

[Edit]: Ah, methinks you're pulling my leg now. :smallamused:

Harris the Ford
2010-08-26, 02:37 PM
But there's no Speficic to trump that general. :smallwink:

[Edit]: Ah, methinks you're pulling my leg now. :smallamused:

{Scrubbed}

Regardless, this topic seems to be growing stale. I suggest we all agree to disagree before feeling start getting hurt.

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:38 PM
But there's no Speficic to trump that general. :smallwink:

[Edit]: Ah, methinks you're pulling my leg now. :smallamused:

No, I'm not.

You can't provoke an AoO if you aren't in range of the thing that gets the AoO (reach and threatening).

This is one of the more basic rules of combat. If nothing is around you, you can't suffer from an AoO.

Grappling specifically ignores this because it makes no caveats about things with reach being exempt.

Greenish
2010-08-26, 02:43 PM
Grappling specifically ignores this because it makes no caveats about things with reach being exempt.I accept your premise, for the sake of this discussion anyway.

So, an enemy can provoke without being within reach, as the grappling rules say (to you).

That doesn't give you an exemption from having to be in range to make the attack.

See, an enemy can provoke without you getting to make an AoO, as my examples have demonstrated.

{Scrubbed}

Tanuki Tales
2010-08-26, 02:51 PM
Continuing to beat a dead horse; the target of the incurred AoO is the limbs that are being used to attempt the grapple.

Douglas
2010-08-26, 02:55 PM
Ok, now where do the rules provide for the possibility of attacking a specific limb rather than the creature as a whole? Aside from hydra heads, of course.

You are bringing RAI, realism, and RAMS into a debate about RAW. None of those things have any place in such a debate.

Thinker
2010-08-26, 02:55 PM
Continuing to beat a dead horse; the target of the incurred AoO is the limbs that are being used to attempt the grapple.

I must have missed that passage in the rules where it suddenly allows called shots and you no longer attack the target, but his limbs (which for some reason are just as easy to hit as the rest of him).

Greenish
2010-08-26, 02:55 PM
Continuing to beat a dead horse; the target of the incurred AoO is the limbs that are being used to attempt the grapple.No called shots in default game.

[Edit]: Look, man, stick to your premise. You know, the whole "grapple provokes when target is out of reach".

The Glyphstone
2010-08-26, 02:58 PM
Great Modthulhu: Thread locked for review.

Vaynor
2010-08-26, 05:39 PM
The Red Towel: I've opened the thread again, but please keep it civil.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 08:53 PM
{Scrubbed}

Regardless, this topic seems to be growing stale. I suggest we all agree to disagree before feeling start getting hurt.
Who's getting hurt? Frustrated, maybe, but this thread has been pretty civil it seems.

ericgrau
2010-08-26, 10:25 PM
If magic weapons don't get any magical bonus when attacking something inside an antimagic field, I'd assume the limbs of a creature sustained only by magic would have the same problem.

The spell also seems to say that summons wink out when they enter the (invisible) field, not when their center entered the field. If they could watch their hand disappearing and then move back, they would be entitled to some kind of reflex save before entering. But that seems like an additional complication that the spell simply doesn't include and "entering" seems more likely to mean any part of the creature entering. So the moment the creature touches the field, including attacking someone inside with a natural weapon (or touch attack or whatever), it disappears until the antimagic field moves or disappears.

So I believe this is RAW and that anything additional would have to appear somewhere in the spell text, which it doesn't. Not such-and-such is there as long as RAW doesn't state otherwise. That's not how rules work. I mean maybe you could try to interpret "entering" in a different way than weapons, spells and so on are treated, but nothing in the spell suggests that, and you certainly don't need someone to show you RAW before you'll stop interpreting it that way.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 10:55 PM
If magic weapons don't get any magical bonus when attacking something inside an antimagic field, I'd assume the limbs of a creature sustained only by magic would have the same problem.Actually this is a good point. By RAW, if someone with a magical reach weapon attacks you when you are in the center of an AMF, does the weapon actually lose its magical properties?

I've always treated it as such because It Makes Sense, but if it is also that way by RAW then my position in this thread becomes very solid.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 11:02 PM
"Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that)."

It doesn't function within the area. This presumably means it won't function in that area even if the wielder is outside of it. Therefore, we have an example showing that the important thing isn't merely the location of the wielder.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-26, 11:06 PM
Of course, that makes all sorts of interesting questions arise, such as when in the time of the attack an actual attack roll is made. If you have a +3 sword, would you recieve the bonus to attack rolls because it's still magical when you make the swing, but not the +3 damage because it's nonmagical when/if it hits? Personally, I'd go with no, since you don't benefit from the magical guidance once your arm is inside the field and they're probably still trying to dodge you.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 11:10 PM
Of course, that makes all sorts of interesting questions arise, such as when in the time of the attack an actual attack roll is made. If you have a +3 sword, would you recieve the bonus to attack rolls because it's still magical when you make the swing, but not the +3 damage because it's nonmagical when/if it hits? Personally, I'd go with no, since you don't benefit from the magical guidance once your arm is inside the field and they're probably still trying to dodge you.I've always seen the +3 to-hit bonus as representing your sword being sharper and hence cuts pass the defenses of armor easier. I guess that's also the damage, but if you do think about it this way, then losing both of the benefits is logical.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 11:19 PM
Of course, that makes all sorts of interesting questions arise, such as when in the time of the attack an actual attack roll is made. If you have a +3 sword, would you recieve the bonus to attack rolls because it's still magical when you make the swing, but not the +3 damage because it's nonmagical when/if it hits? Personally, I'd go with no, since you don't benefit from the magical guidance once your arm is inside the field and they're probably still trying to dodge you.

Moreover, trying to track something like that is so ridiculously complicated that you'd expect that if the designers intended that outcome, they would add a paragraph of text, or at least a line or two, dedicated to setting the right expectation.

Math_Mage
2010-08-26, 11:28 PM
"Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that)."

It doesn't function within the area. This presumably means it won't function in that area even if the wielder is outside of it. Therefore, we have an example showing that the important thing isn't merely the location of the wielder.

Question: by RAW, does the sword enter the AMF when attacking from outside it?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 11:34 PM
It quite literally does not matter.

If it "does not function within an area", then you don't get the effects of it within that area. It doesn't matter where the origin is, the effect still ends at the boundary of the AMF. Even if the sword somehow just deals the physical damage without entering the AMF to actually hit, it still could not get the magical bonuses inside the AMF.

Of course, ignoring that hitting requires contact again falls back on the idea that RAW must specify in exhaustive detail basic things we all understand from a 3rd grade level of English comprehension. Why isn't the effects of death explained in the rules? Because the designers assumed that you already knew what death was. Ditto the fact that melee attacks require physical contact.

In fact, if you read through the rulebooks, you will find tons of support for both of the above assumptions everywhere. It's amazing how frequently melee attacks are described as striking or hitting people.

Frosty
2010-08-26, 11:37 PM
Question: by RAW, does the sword enter the AMF when attacking from outside it?
When one must ask questions like this, then one can conclude that no matter what the answer to the question is, RAW is bloody stupid :smallwink:

Well, let's take a look at the AMF spell description itself in the PHB. The first sentence of paragraph 4 states: A normal creature (not a conjured one) can enter the area, as can normal missiles.

I bolded the relevant part. What this says (or at least heavily implies) is that weapons used from outside the field can indeed be brought into the field at some point before it makes contact with the intended target inside the AMF.

Now yes, the description was talking about missile attacks here, but is it that hard to extrapolate that melee weapons can also, at some time between attack start and attack end, be brought into the AMF field?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:26 AM
Normal in this context almost certainly means non magical.

You can of course bring in non-magical weapons too. Summoned weapons are an explicit exception.

It TELLS you what happens to magical melee weapons in the field. They act non-magical. So, no extrapolation needed.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 12:47 AM
Yes, but as Math_Mage has shown, some people will ask whether or not a melee weapon enters the AMF area at all when striking at a target well-within the AMF.

It's not an irrelevant or dumb question when we're talking about RAW, to be honest...

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:50 AM
It is, because of the very definition of striking.

If you stop using English words as they are defined, you can arrive at any conclusion whatsoever.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-27, 03:26 AM
The Sage can't find any evidence in the rules for melee attacks being adjudicated in other than the attacker's space.

If an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all?

Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. Thus, if an ogre tried to sunder your elf’s longsword from 10 feet away, you wouldn’t get an attack of opportunity against the ogre (since an elf wielding a longsword doesn’t threaten an enemy 10 feet away). This is true even if the ogre is reaching out with his hand, such as when trying to grapple you.

Even the Close-Quarters Fighting feat doesn’t help, since that feat applies only when the attack of opportunity against a grappling foe normally would be denied by “a feat or special ability that would normally bypass the attack” and lists Improved Grapple and improved grab as examples.

If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact with you or your space, you can make an attack of opportunity against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt). From this we can conclude that:

It requires a house rule to treat a melee attacker's weapon as entering the target's space in the D&D combat system.
Grapple AoOs are subject to the normal rules that require the provoked character to threaten the provoker's space.

Tyger
2010-08-27, 06:33 AM
It makes me feel dirty to be in agreement with the Sage... of course, I would never actually play it that way, as I think RAW is so riddled with flaws that it needs to be interpreted in order to be playable.

That said, I am out - to go take a very long hot shower and wash the filth of Sage agreement from my skin.

Now if only there was something that could do it for my mind.

Killer Angel
2010-08-27, 09:04 AM
I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been already clarified.

By RAW, the grapple is a touch attack, so you must physically touch the target with a part of your body, before the step of the opposed grapple check.
by RAW, a summoned creature larger than the area enclosed by the AMF, is unaffected by the field for those parts that lie outside the barrier (while the part inside it, disappears).

Thus, by RAW, a summoned creature cannot grapple someone in a AMF, right? (well, it couldn't anyway, when it'll arrive the step of joining the same square while grappling... the point is: it cannot even before, the AMF stops it in the step of the touch attack)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 09:41 AM
I brought it up a few pages ago, Killer. It was entirely ignored.

I would be amused by someone attempting to prove that a touch attack does not require touching, though. Should be entertaining.

Killer Angel
2010-08-27, 09:49 AM
I brought it up a few pages ago, Killer. It was entirely ignored.


Then, it's about time to have an answer! :smallsmile:


I would be amused by someone attempting to prove that a touch attack does not require touching, though. Should be entertaining.

It's not logical, but i can see that, by RAW, an attack with natural weapons doesn't involve a touch ('cause it's not specified in the description).
But a touch attack does.

Tyger
2010-08-27, 10:02 AM
I brought it up a few pages ago, Killer. It was entirely ignored.

I would be amused by someone attempting to prove that a touch attack does not require touching, though. Should be entertaining.

*chuckles* Its not that common sense doesn't make that immediately obvious, its that RAW doesn't require, or even permit, an attack to actually cause the attacker to enter the other area. If it did, you could never attack into any area of effect spells (such as Evard's and its ilk) without suffering the ill effects of that area spell.

So yes, RAW, you touch someone without ever entering their space. RAMS of course you have to, and any DM that ruled otherwise deserves a swift kick the the arse.

That said, Frosty pointed out something interesting - on the summoned creature reaching into an AMF and only those parts that enter the AMF disappear, isn't that instant death? If half my body suddenly goes away, what's holding in the internal organs and blood???

Greenish
2010-08-27, 10:33 AM
That said, Frosty pointed out something interesting - on the summoned creature reaching into an AMF and only those parts that enter the AMF disappear, isn't that instant death? If half my body suddenly goes away, what's holding in the internal organs and blood???I'm not sure the partial disappearance is a correct interpretation. The "should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field" could refer to the fact that creatures not fully inside the field can still cast spells and use spell-likes, drawing the line of effect and so forth from the squares outside the field, as Rules Compendium specifies.

Maybe.

Tyger
2010-08-27, 10:35 AM
I'm not sure the partial disappearance is a correct interpretation. The "should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field" could refer to the fact that creatures not fully inside the field can still cast spells and use spell-likes, drawing the line of effect and so forth from the squares outside the field, as Rules Compendium specifies.

Maybe.

Possibly, but if only part of the creature goes in (let's assume a Medium sized critter using a natural weapon to attack) and that part disappears, while the rest of the body stays as normal... what happens to that creature??

Greenish
2010-08-27, 10:53 AM
Possibly, but if only part of the creature goes in (let's assume a Medium sized critter using a natural weapon to attack) and that part disappears, while the rest of the body stays as normal... what happens to that creature??As I see it, anything that bleeds can be critted would probably die or suffer large penalties.

RAW, the limb would disappear until AMF is over, but it wouldn't affect the creature in any way, as far as I can tell.

Tyger
2010-08-27, 11:05 AM
RAW, the limb would disappear until AMF is over, but it wouldn't affect the creature in any way, as far as I can tell.

True, RAW there are no rules for limb or part loss (other than the Vorpal enchantment) so I suppose RAW, if half your torso suddenly disappears, you just smile and keep going. Yet another BWAHHHH?? moment brought to you by the fine folks at WotC.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-27, 11:08 AM
RAW, the limb would disappear until AMF is over*
* - assuming the limb actually needs to enter the target's space to make the attack, which the rules don't seem to cover.

Personally, I've always thought of D&D combat like Kwai Chang Caine attacking with his chi power. He knocks enemies back, and snuffs out candles across the room, by striking in the right direction but without actually getting close to the target. You wave your weapon or body part in your own square, and a target within reach loses hit points.

Greenish
2010-08-27, 11:33 AM
* - assuming the limb actually needs to enter the target's space to make the attackThe assumption was stated in the question I was trying to answer, yes, and I think Tyger's point was that both interpretations lead to absurd conclusions.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 11:38 AM
The Sage can't find any evidence in the rules for melee attacks being adjudicated in other than the attacker's space.
From this we can conclude that:

It requires a house rule to treat a melee attacker's weapon as entering the target's space in the D&D combat system.
Grapple AoOs are subject to the normal rules that require the provoked character to threaten the provoker's space.

Not that I'm dissing the sage, but we're treating the sage as RAW now?

And according to the sage's logic, the AMF's main job is to screw over the caster inside of it, since it doesn't seem to screw over the people outside at all...

As for my point about death from losing half the body, I'd just rule that if any part of a summoned creature touches an AMF, the summoned creature disappears completely. This prevents the whole 'bleeding out from losing halfmy body' problem.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-27, 12:04 PM
Not that I'm dissing the sage, but we're treating the sage as RAW now?
Nope. It's just one other person's attempt at finding evidence for your "attacker must partially enter the target's space" idea in the rules, and failing.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-27, 08:55 PM
* - assuming the limb actually needs to enter the target's space to make the attack, which the rules don't seem to cover.

.

rules compendium pg 11 (and yes it does count as 3.5 erratta)under antimagic "it's attacks and abilities are affected by antimagic if it attacks into the antimagic area or uses an ability on a foe in the antimagic area"

Frosty
2010-08-27, 09:02 PM
Actually the wording is: a magic weapon used to attack from inside an AMF area, or one used to attack a creature inside an AMF area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties.

So that makes it clear for magic weapons. Obviously we know what logic says about natural weapons, but again we know what they say about logic and RAW...

Greenish
2010-08-27, 09:05 PM
Actually the wording is: a magic weapon used to attack from inside an AMF area, or one used to attack a creature inside an AMF area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties.Hmmp, where's that? SRD just says "it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines" and "a magic sword does not function magically within the area".

I thought the gist of the argument was whether the thing used for attack enters AMF.

[Edit]: Ah, it's in Rules Compendium, never mind. Should have checked that first. :smallredface:

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-27, 09:06 PM
Actually the wording is: a magic weapon used to attack from inside an AMF area, or one used to attack a creature inside an AMF area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties.

So that makes it clear for magic weapons. Obviously we know what logic says about natural weapons, but again we know what they say about logic and RAW...

no, really, what I typed was what was on page 11 second paragraph under creatures word for word. nowhere in that paragraph about big creatures in any way makes reference to magic weapons

Math_Mage
2010-08-28, 02:54 PM
no, really, what I typed was what was on page 11 second paragraph under creatures word for word. nowhere in that paragraph about big creatures in any way makes reference to magic weapons

Your quotation relates to what happens when a creature partially inside the antimagic field attacks inside the antimagic field. The complete citation:


CREATURES
Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and corporeal undead still function in an antimagic area. Their special abilities are affected by the antimagic as detailed below.
A big creature whose space is partially within an antimagic area can choose to attack from a square not within the area, thereby suffering no adverse effects from the antimagic. Its attacks and abilities are affected by the
antimagic if it attacks into the antimagic area or uses an ability on a foe within the antimagic area.
Summoned creatures of any type disappear if they enter an antimagic area. Incorporeal creatures do the same. These creatures reappear in the same spot once the antimagic effect goes away, unless they were summoned by an effect whose duration has expired—see Spells, below.

So, either the summoned creature disappears entirely when it attacks from outside the antimagic field, or it does not (either it enters, or it doesn't--no provision is made for entering only halfway). The section you quoted does not help choose one of these outcomes, because the creature in that section is already in the AMF. Frosty's is a better citation--not RAW-conclusive, but good enough for government WotC work.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-28, 08:59 PM
Your quotation relates to what happens when a creature partially inside the antimagic field attacks inside the antimagic field. The complete citation:



So, either the summoned creature disappears entirely when it attacks from outside the antimagic field, or it does not (either it enters, or it doesn't--no provision is made for entering only halfway). The section you quoted does not help choose one of these outcomes, because the creature in that section is already in the AMF. Frosty's is a better citation--not RAW-conclusive, but good enough for government WotC work.

actually in the part I, and now you, quoted the big creature is not in the amf, only the attacks the creature attempts within the amf. and if the creature in the amf attacks a space outside the amf, those attacks are unaffected by the amf.
so by your interpretation, since the monsters natural attacks are affected by attacking into the amf then the entire monster winks out of existance. as opposed to the previous paragraph that only the attacks are affected by targeting into the amf. in this case ignoring the raw that bigger creature partially in the amf have parts outside the amf unaffected.

Math_Mage
2010-08-28, 09:48 PM
actually in the part I, and now you, quoted the big creature is not in the amf, only the attacks the creature attempts within the amf. and if the creature in the amf attacks a space outside the amf, those attacks are unaffected by the amf.

I repeat:

A big creature whose space is partially within an antimagic area

Hence the big creature is in the AMF, as you yourself note later in the post. This fulfills the requirement for summoned creatures to wink out, so a summoned creature would wink out and not get the chance to use natural attacks or do anything else.


so by your interpretation, since the monsters natural attacks are affected by attacking into the amf then the entire monster winks out of existance.

The situation described could not arise with a summoned creature, as it would wink out as soon as its space was 'partially within an antimagic area'. There are no provisions for partial disappearance, though it is a more than reasonable house-rule.

Frosty
2010-08-28, 11:33 PM
I repeat:


Hence the big creature is in the AMF, as you yourself note later in the post. This fulfills the requirement for summoned creatures to wink out, so a summoned creature would wink out and not get the chance to use natural attacks or do anything else.



The situation described could not arise with a summoned creature, as it would wink out as soon as its space was 'partially within an antimagic area'. There are no provisions for partial disappearance, though it is a more than reasonable house-rule.
Actually, houseruling that parts of the creature winks out creates so many problems that it just shouldn't be done...mostly because it's insta-death for the summoned creature. I'd just say that if any part of the creature touches an AMF, the creature winks out.

Why do you say my citation is not raw-conclusive? Because it doesn't specifically spell out that natural weapons also work the same way?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 11:38 PM
Actually, houseruling that parts of the creature winks out creates so many problems that it just shouldn't be done...mostly because it's insta-death for the summoned creature. I'd just say that if any part of the creature touches an AMF, the creature winks out.

Why do you say my citation is not raw-conclusive? Because it doesn't specifically spell out that natural weapons also work the same way?

Only if you use "logic" to say that it's instant death. By RAW, there's nothing that says that.

In fact, if an antimagic field ends, the summoned creature is still "there". How this works is pretty much unexplained.

dextercorvia
2010-08-28, 11:52 PM
The Sage can't find any evidence in the rules for melee attacks being adjudicated in other than the attacker's space.
From this we can conclude that:

It requires a house rule to treat a melee attacker's weapon as entering the target's space in the D&D combat system.
Grapple AoOs are subject to the normal rules that require the provoked character to threaten the provoker's space.


Actually, according to the text you quoted, the weapon entering is assumed and not part of the houserule. The houserule is required to attack that limb or weapon that is coming within reach.


If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact with you or your space, you can make an attack of opportunity against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt).

Frosty
2010-08-29, 12:05 AM
Only if you use "logic" to say that it's instant death. By RAW, there's nothing that says that.

In fact, if an antimagic field ends, the summoned creature is still "there". How this works is pretty much unexplained.
I actually think that RAW supports the entire creature disappearing more than partial disappearance, but that's just me.

Math_Mage
2010-08-29, 03:48 AM
Actually, houseruling that parts of the creature winks out creates so many problems that it just shouldn't be done...mostly because it's insta-death for the summoned creature. I'd just say that if any part of the creature touches an AMF, the creature winks out.

Why do you say my citation is not raw-conclusive? Because it doesn't specifically spell out that natural weapons also work the same way?

Because a summoned creature is not a natural weapon. Logic dictates the same treatment; RAW is often illogical. Certainly if this situation comes up in any game I run, the summoned creature goes poof.


I actually think that RAW supports the entire creature disappearing more than partial disappearance, but that's just me.

Me as well.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-29, 10:38 AM
Actually, according to the text you quoted, the weapon entering is assumed and not part of the houserule.
The assumption is only expressed as part of the house rule. In fact, before Rules Compendium all aspects of melee attacks were solely dictated by the attacker, using the conditions in their space. However, since Rules Compendium introduced the target space as a consideration for magic weapons in Antimagic Fields the equation isn't as simple as it used to be. In fact it's downright inconsistent, because both the attacker and target spaces need to be outside the Antimagic Field for the attack not to be affected.

Frosty
2010-08-29, 08:25 PM
The assumption is only expressed as part of the house rule. In fact, before Rules Compendium all aspects of melee attacks were solely dictated by the attacker, using the conditions in their space. However, since Rules Compendium introduced the target space as a consideration for magic weapons in Antimagic Fields the equation isn't as simple as it used to be. In fact it's downright inconsistent, because both the attacker and target spaces need to be outside the Antimagic Field for the attack not to be affected.
Can you elaborate? Exactly which part is inconsistent right now? Are you saying the text of the AMF spell in the PHB is inconsistent with the entry of how AMF works in the Rules Compendium?

Math_Mage
2010-08-29, 08:58 PM
Can you elaborate? Exactly which part is inconsistent right now? Are you saying the text of the AMF spell in the PHB is inconsistent with the entry of how AMF works in the Rules Compendium?

He's saying that it's inconsistent with both the rule of resolving the attack in the attacker's square and the rule of resolving the attack in the target's square, because if either square is in an AMF, the attack is treated as being in the AMF. It's not internally inconsistent, since this third rule covers it.