Absurd AoO.... what can be done?

[delericho]

I can't see such text in the SRD version of Combat Reflexes, or the general rule on Attacks of Opportunity. It says you can't take more than one attack per opportunity, not per opponent.

That's odd. The text does definitely appear in both the PHB and ELH.

(Additionally, I've checked the errata, and neither the PHB errata not that for the ELH adjusts this wording.)

Edit: Aw, crap. Sorry, my bad - this was a change between the 3.0e PHB and the 3.5e PHB. Sorry.

 

[delericho]

If the caster then tries to cast a spell and fails the concentration check to cast defensively

Incidentally, a nitpick of my own: if the caster fails the Concentration roll to cast defensively, he doesn't provoke an AoO as a consequence - he loses the spell.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Incidentally, a nitpick of my own: if the caster fails the Concentration roll to cast defensively, he doesn't provoke an AoO as a consequence - he loses the spell.

Indeed you're correct on this one. We've both made some errors. lol

 

[delericho]

Indeed you're correct on this one. We've both made some errors. lol

Yep. Plus, you've actually done me a service - you've corrected a rules mistake I've been making for ten years now. So, thank you.

(And, in case anyone's wondering, and I wouldn't blame you, that's why I find these nitpicky little rules debates worthwhile - they help to hone my knowledge of the rules of the game I still use.)

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I've only ever known 3.5's rules, so I suppose in a way it's a good thing I haven't had to deal with the funny conversion issues like that. Though there are some good things in 3.0 that were missed in 3.5 such as explicitly saying that prestige classes don't incur the multiclass XP penalty.

 

[emanresu]

Robilar's Gambit + Hold the line + Karmic Strike + imp combat reflexes...would this work?

 

[delericho]

Robilar's Gambit + Hold the line + Karmic Strike + imp combat reflexes...would this work?

Yes, but I'm pretty sure Karmic Strike is redundant here - your foe is already provoking from when he attacks due to Robilar's Gambit. Since a hit is just a successful attack (and not a separate action), it can't provoke again.

Also, again, Improved Combat Reflexes is an Epic feat - you need to be level 21+ to take it. If the game has gotten that far, complaining about pretty much anything a non-spellcaster can do on balance grounds is pretty ridculous, given what the spellcasters can do.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

The interaction between Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike is a bit of a rules contention, depending on who you talk to of course. One interpretation is that the provoking actions are actually different, and thus a character with both would get two AoOs: One for simply being attacked thanks to RG, and the other for actually being hit thanks to KS. The reasoning is that since merely being attacked is different than being hit, they're separate opportunities to make an AoO.

I don't personally agree with that idea, but I also wouldn't invalidate a character's feat if one pretty much entirely takes over the other. In the case of a character with both that's at least five total feats spent on the combo, so I'd lessen the attack and damage bonus of the opponent from RG to be +2 instead of +4 thanks to extra training from Karmic Strike.

 

[delericho]

The interaction between Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike is a bit of a rules contention, depending on who you talk to of course.

Indeed. Dandu and I went around on this very topic in this thread about a year ago.

One interpretation is that the provoking actions are actually different, and thus a character with both would get two AoOs: One for simply being attacked thanks to RG, and the other for actually being hit thanks to KS. The reasoning is that since merely being attacked is different than being hit, they're separate opportunities to make an AoO.

Indeed. That was pretty much exactly Dandu's reasoning. My counter-argument was that there is no precedent (that I'm aware of) for a single action on the part of a character provoking two attacks of opportunity from a single opponent. The one case where it might (leaving multiple threatened squares) explicitly does not.

(Of course, the hole in my logic is that they didn't address is basically because there aren't any cases where it comes up - or at least, there weren't any until KS and RG were added to the game.)

I don't personally agree with that idea, but I also wouldn't invalidate a character's feat if one pretty much entirely takes over the other. In the case of a character with both that's at least five total feats spent on the combo, so I'd lessen the attack and damage bonus of the opponent from RG to be +2 instead of +4 thanks to extra training from Karmic Strike.

Honestly, I'd be more inclined to just remove Karmic Strike from the game - it does much the same as RG (a penalty to AC instead of a bonus to hit, in exchange for an AoO on a hit vs an attack), and since RG is the more recent feat, it could be considered to be a simple update, albeit one with a different name.

(Of course, RG is problematic all by itself, so I'd ban that too, though for slightly different reasons!)

 

[NuSair]

Indeed. Dandu and I went around on this very topic in this thread about a year ago.



Indeed. That was pretty much exactly Dandu's reasoning. My counter-argument was that there is no precedent (that I'm aware of) for a single action on the part of a character provoking two attacks of opportunity from a single opponent. The one case where it might (leaving multiple threatened squares) explicitly does not.

A move action is a single action and if you move though multiple squares that someone threatens, do you not generate multiple AoOs?