What if Making an AoO When Threatened Provoked?

[CuRoi]

Yes.
AoOs do confuse people. It took me a little while to really understand them, and I'm sure that I'm still confused, at times.

Which may be all the better reason to change them to suit your need : )

I'm not an expert on bullrushing and tripping. Neither have come up much in our games.

I'm on the same page with your interpretations. We don't use Bull Rush much either so somwhere in my head I had filed the movement into a Bull Rush provoked AoOs (from those that threaten you) simply because you were moving into a contested space and your "flow" as it was put is interrupted.

Granted, if every one of these potential AoO's also provoked an AoO, then that'd reduce the chance of any of these ever happening even further than the RAW rules concerning these manuevers already do (in my game, at least).

I think its possible to make a case against can be made against AoOs provoking AoOs...(my previous post)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The best rationale that I have is that making an AoO is out of sync with your normal rythm as determined by your initiative. That combined with the idea that diverting your attention long enough to make an AoO while threatened seems like enough provoke an AoO from other combatants that threaten you.

I can understand how you get there, I suppose; maybe I have trouble because I view combat as in reality more fluid, with convenient mechanical 'handles' (initiative order, move + attack etc.) which allow us to actually play the game.

AoOs are already kind of meta-devices which represent an 'opening' in combat, and sometimes their internal rationale can seem rather forced; to me, it almost becomes a meta-meta-device when you allow an AoO against someone who is making an AoO, and the abstraction of combat present even in very tactical 3.5 becomes rather too concretized. If that makes sense.

Otherwise...

I suppose to replicate this situation normally you'd have to (stupidly) ready an attack action against someone who might make an AoO against the guy standing next to you. This would suggest to me that a Feat might be the way to allow it without a readied action, but that such a feat would need some additional incentive (+2? +4?) to make it worth taking. I also think that the kind of teamwork implied is suggestive of a feat. And now I'm wondering whether it should be tied to a different economy - not AoOs but immediate actions.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Thanks to everyone for all the input into this thread.

I don't think I'm going to make AoO's provoke AoO's (unless they would by the RAW, such as tripping or disarming without the proper feat).

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Quote:
The best rationale that I have is that making an AoO is out of sync with your normal rythm as determined by your initiative. That combined with the idea that diverting your attention long enough to make an AoO while threatened seems like enough provoke an AoO from other combatants that threaten you.​

I can understand how you get there, I suppose; maybe I have trouble because I view combat as in reality more fluid, with convenient mechanical 'handles' (initiative order, move + attack etc.) which allow us to actually play the game.

Right. The rules are there to allow us to play the game and have fun doing it.

AoOs are already kind of meta-devices which represent an 'opening' in combat, and sometimes their internal rationale can seem rather forced; to me, it almost becomes a meta-meta-device when you allow an AoO against someone who is making an AoO, and the abstraction of combat present even in very tactical 3.5 becomes rather too concretized. If that makes sense.

It does, indeed.

That's why I'm strongly leaning toward not allowing an AoO with any attack that would provoke an AoO. Makes things like Improved Bullrush a little more valuable, because you can attempt such manuevers as an AoO when someone without that feat could not.

Otherwise...

I suppose to replicate this situation normally you'd have to (stupidly) ready an attack action against someone who might make an AoO against the guy standing next to you. This would suggest to me that a Feat might be the way to allow it without a readied action, but that such a feat would need some additional incentive (+2? +4?) to make it worth taking. I also think that the kind of teamwork implied is suggestive of a feat. And now I'm wondering whether it should be tied to a different economy - not AoOs but immediate actions.

Yeah. But, why ready an action to attack later when you could just attack him, now? Perhaps if you somehow threatened two opponents that also threatend your friend, you'd ready an action to attack the first one to attack him, while fightng defensively, yourself? I'm sure the situation could be arranged with the right combination of reach, etc...

 

[Manzotin]

Hello, my first post here

I've recently gone deep in AoO rules after my last character - warrior with reach weapon and combat reflexes.

I've found in the faqs ( Official D&D Game Rule FAQ ) that an AoO can provoke another AoO, and so on.

The question come up in this situation in our campaign:

A provokes an AoO from B
B tries to disarm without talent (action wich provokes AoO)

it seems unfair to me that B can use an action where he's not proficient without penalties.

 

[CuRoi]

Hello, my first post here

I've recently gone deep in AoO rules after my last character - warrior with reach weapon and combat reflexes.

I've found in the faqs ( Official D&D Game Rule FAQ ) that an AoO can provoke another AoO, and so on.

Ahhh ok so we have confirmation here : ) My group still does it differently in the off chance it comes up and we've never pursued it past a chain of 2 AoOs, just cause it gets silly.

The more I thought about it though the more I wanted my previous post to be correct - that an AoO interrupts everything and must be resolved before anything else (i.e. more AoOs) which keeps it to one AoO and keeps combat flowing instea dof taking a 5 minute break to meta-stack actions and such. The whole "declare your stack of AoOs then work backwards through them, remembering to lose your attacks" thing sounds like a pain.

Given that "official" interpretation, it's good Hrothgar decided against his rule. Otherwise you are looking at the "opportunist" taking an AoO while anyone around him could then take an AoO on him for actually taking his AoO which was granted by the original AoO, then anyone near those people could AoO those attacking the opportunist for taking an AoO and so on and so forth.

 

[El Mahdi]

I believe the change you were proposing (althouth you seem to be leaning away from it now) was to add this to the AoO rules:

Making an AoO while in a threatened square, provokes an AoO against yourself.

This seems to fit with the language of the origninal rules, but I can see the problems with it (as already mentioned throughout the thread).


But what if it was stated this way:

Making an AoO while in a threatened square, against opponents other than those which already threatened you, provokes AoO's from those opponents that already threatened you. You do not provoke an AoO from the opponent that initially provoked your AoO, even if they currently threaten you. The AoO's you provoke from opponents that threaten you, do not also provoke AoO's.

In other words, if you're in a threatened square, and an opponent that threatened you does something to provoke an AoO, you can attack with no adverse repercussions (Orc B in the OP - this is different than what the OP proposed - I don't think that Orc C should get an AoO against Fighter A). But, if you make an AoO against someone that didn't already threaten you (such as an opponent passing through a square you threaten - call him Orc D - or Bull Rushing/Charging/etc into you...but they didn't previously threaten you) then opponents that already threaten you may make AoO's against you. These AoO's do not also generate an AoO from you (so, no infinite AoO loop...).

This works for me. I don't see any extra problems from this...unless I'm missing something...though it does add some extra complication to the rules. I don't mind that extra complication, and if your players like the facing rules, they probably won't mind either. However, I don't see the argument about there being more things to track...? But, there is some added complication to the rules.

I actually use something like this in my own games. But I've done it from the approach of adding an "Engaged" condition. "Engaged" is defined as: any time you have attacked an opponent or been attacked by an opponent, excluding AoO's, you are considered "Engaged" with the target(s).

This leads to: Once you are "Engaged" with an opponent(s) you cannot make an AoO against an opponent you are not engaged with, without provoking an AoO yourself.

But, after reading this thread, I think I better like the above addition to the rule. (The one in the second quote box.)

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Hello, my first post here

Welcome to E N World!

I've recently gone deep in AoO rules after my last character - warrior with reach weapon and combat reflexes.

I've found in the faqs ( Official D&D Game Rule FAQ ) that an AoO can provoke another AoO, and so on.

Here's a couple more links to articles about AoOs.

• Attacks of Opportunity Part 1

• Attacks of Opportunity Part 2

The question come up in this situation in our campaign:

A provokes an AoO from B
B tries to disarm without talent (action wich provokes AoO)

it seems unfair to me that B can use an action where he's not proficient without penalties.

I agree.

In this situation, by the 3.5 RAW, my interpretation is that B would provoke an AoO from A for attempting to disarm without the apropriate feat/talent.

At this point, though, I'm 99% certain that we'll houserule that any action that provokes an attack of opportunity cannot be used to make an attack of opportunity. Makes things like Improved Bullrush a little more valuable, because you can attempt such manuevers as an AoO when someone without that feat could not.

Again, welcome to E N World!

 

[Manzotin]

Thx for the warm welcome!

In other campaigns, we used to houserule this exactly as you stated: an AoO can't be used for an action wich provokes AoO. We were scared of slowdowns and long loops.

But, frankly, after playing for 6 months a campaign where the tactical it's pretty important and the fights are full of AoOs cause of my character (warrior lock -kinda- build), it just takes a bit longer than standard, but even the simplest encounters require wise tactical choiches. Our DM challenges us hard, with lots of special attacks like Overrun, Trip, Disarm and such: after the earlier, devastating fights, we learded the hard way how funny can be a more chess-like approach despite a more classical "charge, nuke, heal" way. Now, we absolutly avoid provoking AoOs unless the situation really requires it.
Plus, usually i'm the only on the ground with Combat Expertise, so infinite loops are really a non-isse.

Maybe it's just me, but i'm now having more fun in playing a game i know since 10 years Roleplay it's always funny, but fight used to be pretty stramline.