Can an AoO provoke an AoO?

[Mr.Binx]

Can an attack of opportunity provoke an attack of opportunity? i.e. an individual without the improved unarmed combat feat attacks a monk, provoking an attack of opportunity. The monk decides to do a grapple attempt as his attack of opportunity, which normally provokes an attack of opportunity. Now I don't think this is covered in the harcover material anywhere, but I seem to recall a sage answer about two months ago on the message boards somewhere that stated AoOs shouldn't provoke AoOs even though it doesn't say anywhere in the books. Am I remembering this right?

 

[Caliban]

Can an attack of opportunity provoke an attack of opportunity? i.e. an individual without the improved unarmed combat feat attacks a monk, provoking an attack of opportunity. The monk decides to do a grapple attempt as his attack of opportunity, which normally provokes an attack of opportunity. Now I don't think this is covered in the harcover material anywhere, but I seem to recall a sage answer about two months ago on the message boards somewhere that stated AoOs shouldn't provoke AoOs even though it doesn't say anywhere in the books. Am I remembering this right?

No, there is nothing that prevents an AoO from provoking an AoO in return. The chain stops there though, since you are only permitted on AoO per opponent per round (and that's only if you have Combat Reflexes).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, an AoO can provoke an AoO. A good example is unskilled characters trying to Disarm eachother. The Disarm provokes an AoO which is used to make a Disarm attempt which provokes an AoO which is used to Disarm (which provokes an AoO, but the other guy can't tack it 'cuase he's already taken one against the same guy this round). Then the Disarms and counter-disarms are resolved, starting with the second AoO, and cascasding back down to the counter-disarm to the orginal disarm...

hypothetically:

A disarms B, provoking an AoO
B disarms A w/AoO, provoking an AoO
A disarms B w/AoO, provoking an AoO which B cannot take because he's already gotten an AoO vs A this round.

resolved:

A fails attempt (AoO) to disarm B
B fails attempt to counter-disarm A
B fails attempt (AoO) to disarm A
A fails attempt to counter-disarm B
A fails attempt (original attack) to disarm B
B fails attempt to counter-disarm B.

Each of these is an opposed roll, so d20's are rolled a total 12 times.

 

[Artoomis]

Except, of course, that you only get ONE AoO per opponent (or one, period, if you do not have Combat Reflexes.).

 

[Henrix]

And in your example there wouldn't be any counter-Aoo.
The poor sap figthing untrained unarmed against the monk does not get an AoO versus the monk's grapple, as the poor sap does not have a weapon ready.
(If you don't have Improved Unarmed you are not armed.)

 

[Caliban]

And in your example there wouldn't be any counter-Aoo.
The poor sap figthing untrained unarmed against the monk does not get an AoO versus the monk's grapple, as the poor sap does not have a weapon ready.
(If you don't have Improved Unarmed you are not armed.)

I dare you to find a statement that supports that in the core rules.

This is one ruling from the Sage that I have to disagree with.

 

[Henrix]

I dare you to find a statement that supports that in the core rules.

What? *Desperately grabs his beloved books*
Uh, hmm, p.140, not armed unless IUA,....p.122, threatened area...no, nothing about having to be armed to threaten an area.

D**n, you're right (as usual ), they must have missed that!

OTOH, I really like that rule, as it saves a lot of ridiculous AoOs, especially when two poor sods without Improved Unarmed are slugging it out.
And it makes sense that you have to be "armed" to threaten an area.

 

[Caliban]

What? *Desperately grabs his beloved books*
Uh, hmm, p.140, not armed unless IUA,....p.122, threatened area...no, nothing about having to be armed to threaten an area.

D**n, you're right (as usual ), they must have missed that!

OTOH, I really like that rule, as it saves a lot of ridiculous AoOs, especially when two poor sods without Improved Unarmed are slugging it out.
And it makes sense that you have to be "armed" to threaten an area.

If neither you nor your opponent have Improved Unarmed Strike you don't provoke AoO's for attacking each other barehanded, so you don't get an AoO chain there.

And I think it makes less sense that a person armed with a dagger can make an AoO and choose to trip someone with that AoO, while an unarmed person is somehow prevented from sticking their leg out to trip someone if they provoke an AoO...

 

[Henrix]

If neither you nor your opponent have Improved Unarmed Strike you don't provoke AoO's for attacking each other barehanded, so you don't get an AoO chain there.

Huh?
*Reads through the unarmed section, this time without thinking that characters not armed never get AoOs*
OK, right.

And I think it makes less sense that a person armed with a dagger can make an AoO and choose to trip someone with that AoO, while an unarmed person is somehow prevented from sticking their leg out to trip someone if they provoke an AoO...

Once again, as long as the guy without the knife wasn't trained to fight unarmed.
"Sticking out his leg" isn't a credible trip when done by somebody who is, on the average, five feet away. It'd have to be a very long leg

A guy with a dagger has the other one's attention on the dagger - that makes a whole lot of difference IRL.

But, in the end, it comes down to that I like not having to bother about the wizard with nothing but a wand in his hand attemping to kick the blackguard in full plate when he charges past, for 1d3 subdual.

I think that the intention, even though it is not spelled out clearly, is that somebody who isn't armed does not threaten an area.
But I agree that it isn't explicit, nor hardly even implicit, in the book.

 

[Caliban]

But, in the end, it comes down to that I like not having to bother about the wizard with nothing but a wand in his hand attemping to kick the blackguard in full plate when he charges past, for 1d3 subdual.

That would be pretty foolish of the wizard, since it provokes an AoO from the blackguard, who is probably wielding a weapon that does far more than 1d3 damage, and the blackguard has a much better chance hitting the wizard than the wizard hitting the blackguard.

This simply doesn't happen very often in practice (except in desperate situations).

Just keep in mind that if you are wielding a ranged weapon, you aren't unarmed, and can't make an unarmed strike. (i.e. either you are wielding the bow or you aren't. If you just took a shot with your bow, you can't turn around and punch someone. ) Ranged weapons specifically don't allow you to threaten an area.

I think that the intention, even though it is not spelled out clearly, is that somebody who isn't armed does not threaten an area.
But I agree that it isn't explicit, nor hardly even implicit, in the book.

Ok.