Complex Trip & Disarm AoO Question

[CM]

An unusual circumstance came up in the game tonight and I was wondering how you would resolve it. Stop me if I make a mistake in the following chain of events:

An archer was backed into a corner, threatened by a monk. The archer attacks with his crossbow, which provokes an AoO from the monk. The monk chooses to make his AoO a trip attack. He is successful and the archer is knocked prone. As his followup attack (from improved trip) he chooses to disarm the archer of his crossbow. The archer has a -4 penalty on his opposed attack roll because the crossbow is not a melee weapon. Does the archer also suffer the -4 penalty to melee attacks for being prone on his opposed disarm roll? Does the monk receive a +4 on his opposed disarm roll because his target is prone?

I went halfway in the ruling. I said that because the monk's target was on the ground and couldn't avoid the attack as easily, the monk would get the +4 on the opposed roll for a prone target. On the other hand, I ruled that the archer did not suffer the -4 penalty to melee attacks because he was not making a melee attack, he was simply trying to hang on to his crossbow. I figured that the prone character's -4 penalty to melee attacks was based on the idea that lunging toward your enemy is more difficult when prone. Holding onto something while prone shouldn't be more difficult. It may even be easier (an american-rules football player in the bottom of a tackle pile, for example).

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

I'd given the archer the -4 penalty. If you drop (or get dropped) you try to catch yourself thus giving your enemy an easier time disarming you.

Kodam

 

[Thanee]

The "defender" is not the attacker, even though an attack roll is made, thus the "attacker is prone" modifier does not apply IMHO. This could be argueable, tho, since it is an attack roll, after all.

Likewise, the attacker gets no bonus, since the "defender is prone" modifier does not alter the attack roll, but rather the AC of the defender.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Amal Shukup]

In general, I think all of the cited modifiers would apply. After all, the rules are calling for an 'Attack' Roll - so any modifiers that would normally apply to an Attack Roll under the circumstances (prone) should be applied.

So yes, +4 to the Monk for attacking a Prone Defender, - 4 because the Crossbow is not a melee weapon, and -4 to the crossbowman's 'attack' roll because he's 'attacking' from prone (even though it is not his 'attack', per se).

My rule of thumb is to apply any circumstantial modifiers he would have as if he were actually attacking at that moment. For instance if the Disarmee were standing on higher ground and flanking his Disarmer, I would apply those modifiers to his 'attack' roll as well.

Yes, this is absolutely a losing proposition for the crossbowman, but he's in the wrong place with the wrong weapon.

Of course, the Monk should be taking a -4 for using a 'light' weapon in the Disarm attempt.

A'Mal

 

[CM]

Thanks for the help so far. I see we can at least agree the RAW are clear as mud.

I have a followup question for the same situation. Assuming the archer is disarmed, what does he have left in the way of actions for his turn? He attempted to fire the crossbow but was interrupted. Does that mean all he has left is a move action (and possibly 5' step, should he stand up)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So yes, +4 to the Monk for attacking a Prone Defender...

As Thanee noted, this modifier does not exist in 3.5.

Rather, 'Defender Prone' incurs a -4 penalty to AC.

So the crossbowman's AC is penalised... making absolutely no difference to the resolution of an opposed attack roll.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

I have a followup question for the same situation. Assuming the archer is disarmed, what does he have left in the way of actions for his turn? He attempted to fire the crossbow but was interrupted. Does that mean all he has left is a move action (and possibly 5' step, should he stand up)?

Correct. The standard action is wasted.

BTW, for your initial question, though I think (see above), that none of the modifiers apply under the official rules, I'd still grant the monk a +4 circumstance bonus on the opposed attack roll in that situation (but not an effective +8, that is no penalty to the defender).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Amal Shukup]

As Thanee noted, this modifier does not exist in 3.5.

Er... Gah... Yup. You're both right on that one. Just when I think I've got the rules down...

So the crossbowman's AC is penalised... making absolutely no difference to the resolution of an opposed attack roll.

That would follow...

I DO maintain that the -4 modifier for Attacking from Prone ought to apply to the crossbowman's 'Attack' roll (during the Disarm resolution). As would the -4 penalty for the crossbow not being a melee weapon.

IOW, the Monk would roll a normal Disarm (Attack) roll (at -4 for Unarmed = Light Weapon) vs the Crossbowman rolling at -8.

Also to concur with Thanee, the Crossbowman's Standard Action is wasted.

A'Mal

 

[Hypersmurf]

I DO maintain that the -4 modifier for Attacking from Prone ought to apply to the crossbowman's 'Attack' roll (during the Disarm resolution). As would the -4 penalty for the crossbow not being a melee weapon.

I'd do the same, though I can see where Thanee's argument comes from.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

Actually, I'd do that too, as noted above (+4 to attacker or -4 to defender is really the same thing here), I just think, that the rules, strictly reading, do not give such a bonus/penalty, since even an attack roll is made, the defender simply is not the attacker.

Bye
Thanee