Multiple AoO

[Dire_Groundhog]

I could have sworn that I saw a rules clarification somewhere that stated a character with Combat Reflexes could indeed make multiple AoOs on a creature who drew them for different reasons.

For instance:

The silly wizard, standing next to the fighter with Combat reflexes, decides to move 2 squares to the right in order to flank the fighter, this draws an AoO for moving within threatened area.

Then the wizard casts magic missle (not defensively) and because the fighter has Combat Reflexes, and the fighter takes another crack at the wizard for casting a spell in a threatened space.

------

So by my estimation, a hasted wizard could draw 3 AoOs in a round for;

a. picking up a dropped wand
b. moving more than 5 feet to flank for instance
c. casting a spell not on the defensive


Was this ever discussed in an official manner? Or am I completely insane?

 

[hong]

"You can still only make one attack of opportunity per enemy" -- Combat Reflexes description, PHB pp.80-81.

 

[Christian]

Well, I'll try to beat the pileup and get everything out front ...

Group A: "The PH text (that Hong quoted above) is perfectly clear-even with Combat Reflexes, one character can't get more than one AoO on a given opponent in one round."

Group B: "But the example is of a goblin passing by who exits more than one threatened space during his move. It's not clear to me that this extends to a situation where the goblin moves through your threatened area, stops, drinks a potion within your threat range, and then tries to disarm you."

Group A: "Oh, come on."

Group B: "I'm serious!"

Group A: "Crazy munchkin."

Group B: "Dumb rules-lawyer."

OK, now that that's out of the way: To answer the original question, I don't know that any published Sage response (etc.) addressed this questions. Individuals have written the Sage and gotten responses consistent with the Group A interpretation, which have resulted in derision of the Sage by Group B and not much else. So, there you go.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The rules as written, as cited by hong, are entirely clear.

We can certainly speculate what the author was really thinking or what would make a better rule, but that doesn't change what is written in the text.

As a bit of a rules-balance nazi I would raise another argument: Combat Reflexes is already an attractive feat with the standard interpretation; therefore enhancing CR is undesirable.

I would think creating an Improved Combat Reflexes feat, with CR as a prereq, that allows additional AoOs for additional distinct actions that potentially provoke AoOs would be reasonable.

As for the tired complaint about wizards who move 10' to provoke the AoO than cast with impunity, I would counter that if you habitually run your PC (or NPCs) on autopilot do not whine when he gets outsmarted. That should be obvious.

 

[Crothian]

I would think creating an Improved Combat Reflexes feat, with CR as a prereq, that allows additional AoOs for additional distinct actions that potentially provoke AoOs would be reasonable.

Just as a note:

Improved Combar Reflexes (Epic)
Prerequites: Dex 21, Combat Reflexes
Beenfit: There is no limit to the number of AoO you can make in one round. (You still can't make more then one AoO against a single person in a round).

So, even the epic version only allows one per target per round. And if any feat was to go against that rule, it'd be the epic version.

 

[Dire_Groundhog]

Thank you all for your insight.

The quote from PHB was unnecessary, I am well aware of what is in the book. My memory seems to be failing me in that I thought I recalled a sage advice or something on the topic, but when you read so many varying opinions, interpretations, and comments I guess you are bound to get fuddled up sometimes.

Very helpful nonetheless.

 

[Mahali]

IIRC Bruce Cordell said first that they intended one AoO per provocation. Later Skip seconded this but officially it's one period as printed.

Everyone I know house rules it to per provocation. (go tumble)

 

[Christian]

People love arguing about this one for some reason. I don't know why-I've never seen the situation come up in a game. I think the PHB rule is perfectly clear, too, but I like the 'sense' of the other interpretation. It's just not worth it to me to make a house rule to let folks with combat reflexes take extra pokes at idiots who decide to do the hokey-pokey in their threat zone.

 

[Conaill]

By the way, nobody is contesting that an opponent can provoke more than one AoO per round. But the person who gets the AoO's can only take one.

For example: an enemy spellcaster could try to provoke an AoO before casting a spell. If his opponent takes the first AoO, the caster can then do his spell without worrying about being interrupted. On the other hand, the opponent could decide not to take the first AoO opportunity and wait for an AoO to interrupt the spell.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Thanks for the info, Crothian.

I find that feat hilarious just because the crazy scenarios which even require a 7th AoO.

I guess it could happen in epic level play...

"Of the 400 ogres that rush in to grapple you, you kill 380. Let's roll the opposing grapple checks for the remaining 20."