Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[James McMurray]

I was going by the interpretation that each attack in a full attack is a seperate action (the attack action). If you don't like that interpretation, that's cool. I would paraphrase my response to mean "you don't get more than one AoO per trigger, and the entire round's movement counts as a single trigger."

Yet if you double-move, you're still taking two move actions to do it

In 3.5 that's called the Withdraw action, which is a single full round action. I suppose someone could go ahead and take two single move actions in a turn, but technically they would not be protected against an AoO from the first square they leave.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I suppose someone could go ahead and take two single move actions in a turn, but technically they would not be protected against an AoO from the first square they leave.

Exactly - I'm not claiming they would be. But if they used those two move actions to walk in circles around an opponent, they'd only provoke one AoO... despite taking two actions to do it.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

They'd also be idiots and deserve what they get.

 

[Stalker0]

Arrow is fired.
It moves half the distance to the target.
It moves half the distance to the target again.
and again.
and again.

And it can keep doing so an infinite number of times - so how does it ever hit the target?

Perhaps its like in futurama, where the spaceship doesn't move, the universe does

 

[blargney the second]

Perhaps its like in futurama, where the spaceship doesn't move, the universe does

So in the context of the discussion at hand, does that mean that the person doesn't run, but is instead summoned by the Attacks of Opportunity that are happening?

-blarg

 

[Creamsteak]

Isn't the answer to that Paradox that the limit of the distance approaches a point past the target?

The arrow would not hit the target if the limit only approaches the point where the target exists, but does not pass it. And if it hit it exactly, that would be the equivelent of the arrow hitting your toe with the absolute minimum amount of contact. So therefore the limit must approach a point past the target in order to do damage.

 

[Anubis]

Um, sounds interesting, but if it moves half the distance to the target and then half the distance to the target again, well . . .

1/2 * 2 = 1

That means half plus half equals hit.

Perhaps the wording is off? Or am I thinking too much about it?

@Hypersmurf: Stop thinking in terms of gameplay a second, and think of real-life. That's how I was speaking. If you move around someone, you're not making a bunch of five-foot hops, you're moving in one fluid motion. Also, one can only attack so many times in a turn, or in six seconds of real time. In reality, however, a strike (attack) would be an action in and of itself.

 

[Creamsteak]

Anubis, it's one half the distance, then one half of the remaining distance. So, the distance will keep halving itself infinitely.

The problem inherently is, if the force carrying the arrow is slowing down at a rate of 1/2 it's current speed per increment, the arrow will touch down at a speed extremely close to 0 (but not quite 0 yet) and never connect with the target. The solution, of course, is that if you launched an arrow with that sort of speed, it indeed would never hit the target. In order for an arrow to hit the target, the actual force must carry it to the target. In order for the arrow to pierce the target or do any damage, the arrow has to be headed past the target.

 

[Anubis]

Ah, it's one of those, what do you call 'em? One of those trick type things. I'm supposing the paradox is that, if it keeps moving, it must eventually hit the target, must if it only gets halfway there in any time increment, it never does?

Interesting method there, that.

 

[Maldur]

I thought a AOO could only grant a single attack! so no disarm etc? Is this not so?