AoO Refresher...

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

“Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent”.

The general rule, which holds true even in this case, is that each new opportunity provokes a new AoO.

The specific rule merely clarifies that "movement," regardless of how many threatened squares you leave, is only a single opportunity for any given opponent.

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.

How about a swift spell and a regular spell cast within the same round? Same logic?

That depends on whether or not swift spells actually provoke. If they did, then, yes, they would provoke two separate AoOs. Note that only someone with Combat Reflexes can take advantage of both opportunities.

 

[Gez]

If you want an AoO chain, use your AoO to make a trip, sunder, or disarm attempt.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Then you don't threaten and wouldn't get an AoO in the first place (unless you have IUS).

Reread my original post. Someone attacking unarmed against someone armed provokes an AoO.
Unless you mean against subsequent AoOs.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Reread my original post. Someone attacking unarmed against someone armed provokes an AoO.
Unless you mean against subsequent AoOs.

Well, I think we are probably just repeating things again. But, yeah, what I mean is that if one person is unarmed, then there's no AoO chain.

 

[Gez]

Something I never liked with the AoO rules is that they say that if you do something unsafe, you provoke an AoO.

Hop, you drink a potion, and bam!, an AoO appears from nowhere and hit you.

You don't provoke an AoO, you open yourself to letting other do an AoO on you.

But for them to do so, they have to be threatening you. You must be within one square they threaten, and they need to be armed (or considered such).

The only way you can do an unarmed AoO that "provokes" another AoO is if you're wearing a light or one-armed weapon in one of your hand (so as to be armed), decide to attack with your off-hand unarmed attack, and do not possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat or class feature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

“Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent”.

That's right.

Which seems to be the same thing as mutliple attacks to me. The same type of action beign performed repetively during the round.

Multiple attacks are not moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent. The quote does not apply.

The quote applies to - oddly enough - "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent".

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

The quote applies to - oddly enough - "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent".

-Hyp.

Correct, but I was trying to make a comparison to multiple parts of the same action (i.e., moving) and attacking (part of the full attack action). My seeming on this meant that they were part of the same overall thing, basically stepping up a level is scale (looking at things more at the 10,000 ft level vice the 5 ft one). The rules (and Skip on Rules of the Game) make it fairly clear that you are correct (as usual). I didn't say otherwise though, I only said it seemed wrong to me. There are several actions that specifically state they produce AoO hence the RAW would make it so that those actions always produce one regardless of when they are taken.

 

[glass]

The rules (and Skip on Rules of the Game) make it fairly clear that you are correct (as usual). I didn't say otherwise though, I only said it seemed wrong to me.

IMO, if the Rules of the Game articles agree with Hyp, that is evidence that in that particular case Skip was right, rather than the other way around.


glass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Correct, but I was trying to make a comparison to multiple parts of the same action (i.e., moving) and attacking (part of the full attack action).

Except it's not really at the action level that it's determined, always.

For example, I can leave multiple threatened squares using two distinct move actions, and it's still only a single opportunity.

I can make multiple attacks with a ranged weapon using a single full attack action, and it's multiple opportunities.

-Hyp.

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

IMO, if the Rules of the Game articles agree with Hyp, that is evidence that in that particular case Skip was right, rather than the other way around.


glass.

haha, you said "Skip was right" haha. man, you crack me up.