Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[Anubis]

Okay, here's something for those of you who dismiss the FAQ:

Skip Willaims wrote the FAQ, yes, but WotC accepted it in full. Skip Williams, despite not working for WotC anymore, is STILL UPDATING THE FAQ (the latest update was in April). Lastly, Skip Williams is one of the lead designers and authors of the system/book itself, meaning unless you can get a majority of the other designers/authors to say otherwise, the FAQ is right.

WotC produced it and they have the first, last, and only say as to what is and is not official. The FAQ is official in every way, and even the errata says that if there is disagreement between the text and the table, the text is right. So when you combine the official FAQ, which must be taken as law because it is released by the publisher, with the errata, it all becomes perfectly clear.

Basically, the FAQ is right. If you want Sunder as a Standard Action, move yourself to House Rules, because the RULES state that Sunder is instead a melee attack, as clarified in the FAQ.

I am currently at the WotC board and Monte Cook's forums trying to get people with authority to agree OR disagree to enter, but of course getting a designer to see my topic out of hundreds is unlikely. Still, the support for my argument is very strong both places, although the people are split down the middle at the WotC forum.

I have yet to hear from any designer, however, meaning Skip is the only designer to say anything about it. That also means that, as the lone authority to say one way or the other, he's right.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lastly, Skip Williams is one of the lead designers and authors of the system/book itself, meaning unless you can get a majority of the other designers/authors to say otherwise, the FAQ is right.

This is the same guy who put in the FAQ "A longsword wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon", right?

-Hyp.

 

[Rozman]

So does that then mean that a creature with reach would get 4 AoO's on somebody who runs through 4 of their threatened squares if they had combat reflexes and enough Dex?

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Seperate provoking actions provoke seperate attacks; moving out of multiple squares is a specific exception.

Leave a threatened square and fire a bow while threatened would provoke 2 seperate AOO's, and thus you could smack them twice if you had the AOO's free. Doing laps around someone, even with a double-move appears to provoke only a single AOO.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, I got some pretty solid info from Monte Cook's web site now, and this debate is over.

Simply put, every intended action type is in the text. For every special attack there is, the text states what type of action it is. As it says in the book . . .

Bull Rush:
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or a part of a charge ..."

Charge:
"Charging is a special full-round action ..."

Disarm:
"As a melee attack..."

Feint:
"As a standard action..."

Grapple doesn't follow the form, because it discusses a variety of actions.

Mounted combat is the same.

Overrun:
"You can attempt to overrun as a standard action taken during your move, or as part of a charge." (There is errata here stating that you can't use it as part of a charge.)

Sunder:
"You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon ..."

Throw splash weapon:
Skip the first paragraph and see "To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged attack at the target..."

Trip:
"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

Since the text doesn't implicitly state that it is a standard action and the text does implicitly state that that it is an attack, that means it's an attack and not an action.

Besides, Skip Williams is an official source endorsed by WotC, so obviously they believe that the rule is unclear based on their own writing in that since, unlike all the other "Special Attacks", Sunder's contradicts the table, they felt it necessary to clarify. Why didn't they put it in the errata? THEY DID.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.

This covers the mistake in the table. The fact that the text contradicts the table when taken in context with everything else under the same header (disarm, tripe, etc.) means that a clarification was needed, despite the fact that errata already cleared it up by stating that the text overrules the table whenever there's a contradiction.

So stop arguing otherwise, you're wrong as to the official rule. Now if you wanna have it a standard action as a house rule in your own games, that's fine, but stop trying to make your little house rules look like official rules. You didn't write the rules, WOTC DID; that means they have final say and their word is law on the subject. Any question as to whether or not the rule is good, that doesn't belong here because that's a house rule discussion and a mechanic discussion, as opposed to a rule discussion.

 

[James McMurray]

Anubis, do you have a link to the info from Monte's site?

 

[Majere]

"Since the text doesn't implicitly state that it is a standard action and the text does implicitly state that that it is an attack, that means it's an attack and not an action."

You mean explicitally
Also note I posted that same list of quotes two pages ago.

Majere

 

[Hypersmurf]

... and this debate is over.

If you mean "I'm not replying any more", then fair enough.

If you mean "It's satisfactorily resolved, and I'm right", then that's not something you can really just declare

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Well, he started the thread Hyp. So can't you just lock it if that is what he wants.

And as Hyp said the matter is not resolved .. far from it .. I think this will go on and on for a while

 

[AGGEMAM]

Since the text doesn't implicitly state that it is a standard action and the text does implicitly state that that it is an attack, that means it's an attack and not an action.

So now you're saying that Sundering is not an action? Interesting although wrong .. so wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So now you're saying that Sundering is not an action? Interesting although wrong .. so wrong.

Well, it's a natural progression from the assumption that Sunder is like Disarm, Trip, or Grapple. A melee attack isn't an action; it's something permitted by an action.

The Attack action, for example, is a standard action; it permits a single melee attack. The melee attack is not an action; the Attack action is the action, and the melee attack is a result of that action.

Since Disarm, Trip, and Grapple replace melee attacks, they are not, strictly, actions either, but something permitted by actions... namely Attack, Full Attack, or Charge, and also permitted on an AoO.

According to the Core Rules, Sunder is a standard action which, much like the Attack action, permits one to use a single melee attack, but against a weapon or shield, not against an opponent.

According to the FAQ, Sunder is not an action at all, but something that replaces a melee attack, like Disarm, Trip, or Grapple, and is therefore a consequence of an action, rather than, strictly, an action.

-Hyp.