AoO Refresher...

[irdeggman]

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

Hey, is is/was a whole lot better than Andy has been {IMO} (since taking over Sage Advice). Usually Skip would write when he had discovered that he had previously made a mistake and what he had messed up.

 

[Felnar]

True. But the fact that you're carrying a weapon doesn't require that you use it. Eg., a character with a longsword and no shield threatens an adjacent opponent and would be entitled to any AoO that was provoked; he could, if he chose, use his AoO to make an off-hand unarmed strike, which would itself provoke an AoO ... But you're right, of course, in general-an unarmed character (without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) does not threaten and therefore is not entitled to AoOs.

yes, nothing specificly says you have to make the AoO with what actually causes you to threaten... but do you really think thats how the rules are designed to be interpreted?

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

Hey, is is/was a whole lot better than Andy has been {IMO} (since taking over Sage Advice). Usually Skip would write when he had discovered that he had previously made a mistake and what he had messed up.

Their heads are both full of gravel. It wouldn't be so bad if they would just reference the rulebooks when answering questions. Yes they did write it, but I think we can all agree that we all have to re-read any notes we take when trying to accuratly answer questions--and those may only be afew pages of notes, this is a whole set of books.

Edit:

Now I should say that comment . . ."gravel". . . is made in jest, however there still remains some major issues that were not fixed in editing. between that and the lack of refrencing their own rules when saging leads to the sarcastic remark above. note: allthough my tone fails to indicate it, i do have the utmost respect for said sages, as without their writings we would not have the same 3x D&D we have today. making a better 2nd E is not a project i could have undertaken--so, of course, it is easy for me to be critical.

 

[moritheil]

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.

That's what provoking an AoO is - opening yourself up to attack.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Their heads are both full of gravel. It wouldn't be so bad if they would just reference the rulebooks when answering questions. Yes they did write it, but I think we can all agree that we all have to re-read any notes we take when trying to accuratly answer questions--and those may only be afew pages of notes, this is a whole set of books.

I think a lot of their rules clarifications come from speaking with fellow game designers so citing specific references may not apply. Asking for such is also often another way of saying "I don't believe/agree with you and if you don't show me where it's written in stone then I'm going to say you're full of crap no matter what you say".

I think people should either accept the FAQ decisions or not use them at all and play by your own house rules. Whatever the "legitimacy" of the FAQs, they give a solid and consistent basis for adjudicating problems in the game. Maybe you don't like them, but then you don't have to use them. For the rest of us, they're a godsend to answering troubling questions that aren't covered in the rulebooks (nor can the rulebooks be expected to cover every possible rules scenario that could ever arise in D&D).

Bravo to Sage Advice and the D&D game designers that continue to make a positive contribution to the game and its rules!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whatever the "legitimacy" of the FAQs, they give a solid and consistent basis for adjudicating problems in the game.

Except for where they contradict themselves.

So, yeah, "solid and consistent" for a given value of "consistent..."

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

Except for where they contradict themselves.

So, yeah, "solid and consistent" for a given value of "consistent..."

Word to the Patryn. . . . Yo ::coughs:: . . . sorry I live in the ghetto.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Except for where they contradict themselves.

So, yeah, "solid and consistent" for a given value of "consistent..."

Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. But everyone doesn't have the Internet Police watching over their every word in eager anticipation of screaming "AHA! Gotcha! You made a mistake. Therefore you're illigitimate!".

Personally, I don't understand why these sorts of people even read the FAQ at all. If the Sage or the FAQ isn't good enough for you, then why are you reading them each and every time they get updated? Perhaps just to bash them down? Hmmm?

They are what they are. They're definitely more legitimate than any joe's opinion on the internet, so that's good enough for me. Maybe they've missed some minutia from page X of Y, but I've got better things to do with my time than to dispute such trivial matters and I'd rather leave clarification to those who know the rules (and the spirit behind them) better than anyone on the net...

 

[Coredump]

Maybe they've missed some minutia from page X of Y,

But that is just it. Some of the errors are *not* minutia. And there are a number of issues where the FAQ states it two different ways, and not subtley either, blatant obvious contradictions.

So that shows that the FAQ is fallible, which means that you still have to rely on the RAW for the final determination. When the FAQ is not consistent with the RAW, it must be an example of when they made another mistake.

 

[Jack Simth]

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.

Or having a non-tripping weapon, no Improved Trip feat, and really, really wanting to trip that person charging past you to prevent him from getting to the mage. The Trip attempt is as a melee attack; you get a single melee attack when someone you threaten provokes an attack of opportunity. You can try to trip as he leaves your threatend area.