Confused about AoO's on mages

[melkoriii]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

Yes... except the AoO has already happened, because it was the move that provoked it. By the time he casts the spell, the Ettin has already had (and probably taken) his chance at an AoO.

-Hyp.

Say you are a caster standing next to a Orc with a Axe.

You move 10' away and cast shield.

The orc will get a AoO.

If you had only moved 10' away and did nothing, the Orc would not have gotten his AoO.

 

[melkoriii]

I seem to recall that you only get 1 AoO per opponent in any given round. I don't have my books with me, but I do know that if some critter runs past my monk that has Combat Reflexes thru 3 threatened squares, my monk only gets one AoO on it.

So for the wizard it would be to his advantage to move first to provoke the AoO then cast instead of casting in place to provoke the AoO and possibly mess up his spell.

That has changed in 3.5.

Now IF you can make more than one AoO in a round, you can take as many AoO that are being provoked.

Orc runs past you going though 3 of your threatened spaces and you have Combat Reflexes and a Dex of 14 or more, you get three AoO against that same Orc that round (if you want to).

 

[Henry]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

Say you are a caster standing next to a Orc with a Axe.

You move 10' away and cast shield.

The orc will get a AoO.

If you had only moved 10' away and did nothing, the Orc would not have gotten his AoO.

Correct. However, it is the move and cast that provokes it, not the casting itself. Therefore, even if said Orc had combat reflexes (in 3.5), he would not be able to get 2 Op-Attacks; just the one from the move, and not one from the spell casting, because he is out of reach by then.

 

[Philip]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

Say you are a caster standing next to a Orc with a Axe.

You move 10' away and cast shield.

The orc will get a AoO.

The idiocy of this rule is that it is 'somewhat' hard to imagine. You make a single move 30' away. Nothing happens. Everything is fine. Now you decide what you are going to do. Attack, cast a spell, make another move, who knows? In the last case (another move), no AoO. In the first two cases the orc gets an AoO RETROACTIVELY.

Once you decide to cast that spell, he actually got to attack you when you were still inside his reach (otherwise he would have lots of trouble hitting you at 30' distance). That's weird, but so are the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

Say you are a caster standing next to a Orc with a Axe.

You move 10' away and cast shield.

The orc will get a AoO.

If you had only moved 10' away and did nothing, the Orc would not have gotten his AoO.

This has actually been simplified a little in 3.5.

Now, there is a full-round action called "Withdraw", that allows you to treat the space you start in as unthreatened.

The old "if all you do is move" rule is gone.

So if you take a move action to move 10 feet away, you draw an AoO... whether or not you cast a spell.

If you take the withdraw action to move 10 feet away, you don't draw an AoO... but since it's a full-round action, you no longer have the option of casting a spell (unless you're Shapechanged into a Choker, or have a Quickened spell available).

-Hyp.

 

[DM2]

I think one:



It takes no penalty for two-weapon fighting, but it is not given a bonus to AoOs. It would be reasonable to do so, certainly, but I think I would not.

You could compare this to Hydras, who have a special Combat Reflexes that allows them to use each head on AoOs.

That IS a tough call.

I guess I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. This also supports it:

Attack: Morningstar +12 melee (2d6+6) or javelin +5 ranged (1d8+6)

Full Attack: 2 morningstars +12/+7 melee (2d6+6) or 2 javelins +5 ranged
(1d8+6)

Note that under the full attack option it says "2 morningstars", indicating it gets a full attack with each morningstar (+12/+7).

However, under the attack option it just says "morningstar". If they intended the ettin to get 2 attacks even on rounds when it can't full attack, I'd guess they would have put "2 morningstars" on the attack line.

That said, when I used an Ettin against the party, I gave it 2 attacks on rounds when it moved and couldn't full attack.

I assumed it was similar to how a hydra can take an attack with each head on attacks of opportunity and on rounds when it doesn't full attack.

DM2

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sean K Reynolds Two-Headed Mutant template gets a special Combat Reflexes ability.

The Ettin is lacking clear evidence of such an ability.

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

Say you are a caster standing next to a Orc with a Axe.

You move 10' away and cast shield.

The orc will get a AoO.

If you had only moved 10' away and did nothing, the Orc would not have gotten his AoO.

The orc hit you BEFORE you began casting the spell. You only have to roll concentration if you are damaged DURING the casting of your spell. The result is clear: the sorceror has no concentration check to roll.

 

[melkoriii]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

The orc hit you BEFORE you began casting the spell. You only have to roll concentration if you are damaged DURING the casting of your spell. The result is clear: the sorceror has no concentration check to roll.

THat is correct.

Though I never said anything about concentration checks in my post.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused about AoO's on mages

The idiocy of this rule is that it is 'somewhat' hard to imagine. You make a single move 30' away. Nothing happens. Everything is fine. Now you decide what you are going to do. Attack, cast a spell, make another move, who knows? In the last case (another move), no AoO. In the first two cases the orc gets an AoO RETROACTIVELY.

Once you decide to cast that spell, he actually got to attack you when you were still inside his reach (otherwise he would have lots of trouble hitting you at 30' distance). That's weird, but so are the rules.

Well, they've fixed it in 3.5, but I never had a problem with it in 3E.

Player: "I move 30' away from the orc..."
DM: "Are you moving in such a fashion as to consider the space you start in not threatened?"
Player: "Sure!"
DM: "Okay, no AoO from the orc."
Player: "Now I cast Magic Missile..."
DM: "'fraid not. You made your choice already - nothing but movement for you this round!"

It's the same as the "Deciding between the Attack and Full Attack Actions" clause - you can make your first attack, and then decide whether you want to carry on with a full attack.

Player: "I fire one arrow... BAB +6, Dex bonus +2... a 14? And 6 points of damage."
DM: "That hits, but the orc is still alive."
Player: "Okay, I'll carry on with a Full Attack, and I use Rapid Shot."
DM: "'fraid not. If you use Rapid Shot, you would have had to have taken a -2 penalty to that first arrow, and it would have missed... you made your choice already. No Rapid Shot for you this round!"

If you take an action that is contingent upon your not taking certain actions later in the round, then you simply don't have the option of taking those actions.

-Hyp.