Disarm as an attack of opportunity

[Grayhawk]

Some time ago I wrote WotC to ask about this, here's my question and their answer:

Q: 'Is there something in the rules that state or imply that an AoO cannot provoke an AoO?'

A: 'Yes. It is a free action that is taken as the result of a combatant effectively leaving themselves open to an attack. As such, they are unable to take advantage of a similar opening presented by an AoO.'

I was hoping they'd told me where in the rules this is stated or implied, but no such luck.

I'm not sure this answer really follow the letter of the rules, but it does make play more simple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I was hoping they'd told me where in the rules this is stated or implied, but no such luck.

A Customer Service answer?

Heh.

Best way to make use of Customer Service is to ensure that your question can be answered with Yes or No.

Then take the answer that you receive, and play the exact opposite. It's fairly guaranteed to be that answer that follows the rules more closely.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

I have never seen a rule that prevents taking an AoO on an AoO, house rules not withstanding.

Karmic strike (OA) lets you take an AoO when you are hit to hit them back. Under 3.5, this means that two people with combat reflexes can pound on each other over and over. I like this idea. Kinda like series of very fast back and forth shots.

I have yet to see a balance issue with AoO on AoO. It might slow down the game, but so do high level casters.

 

[Skinwalker]

I have yet to see a balance issue with AoO on AoO.

I'd have to agree. After all, we're talking about a circumstance that only arises when *both* opponents specialize in taking full advantage of potential AoOs (e.g., have Combat Reflexes) *and* both have the insane urge to do things that give each other AoOs.

Once you discover your opponent has Combat Reflexes, the sane (IMHO) thing to do is stop provoking further AoOs. If you push on, you should expect to receive a large number of attacks in a short period of time. To me, that isn't breaking game balance, but enforcing it.

 

[LokiDR]

Or does it just mean you need to work harder to use up his AoOs. I can easily see how this would get boring for every one else at the table.

How about this: when you fail to disarm a person, they can try to disarm you. How far can this go: untill some one wins an attempt they made? That seems how it is written to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How about this: when you fail to disarm a person, they can try to disarm you. How far can this go: untill some one wins an attempt they made? That seems how it is written to me.

No - when you fail to disarm someone, they can counter-disarm you. That's not an AoO - Combat Reflexes has nothing to do with it. There is no counter-counter-disarm allowed if the counter-disarm fails.

However, under 3.5, the initial disarm provokes an AoO, which can itself be a disarm that provokes an AoO, etc. So it's still possible to build a very long disarm chain if both have CR... which then drops through to a long counter-disarm chain if nobody's successful.

-Hyp.

 

[Chimera]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone give a compelling argument for that interpretation.

Is there a passage anywhere that lends it weight?

-Hyp.

Did anyone else realize that the above quote could just as easily (and perhaps more comfortably) be made in reference to any particular religion and it's holy book?

"Why Yes, Hypersmurf, as it says in the 5th Book of Monte, Chapter 12, Verse 19..."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Did anyone else realize that the above quote could just as easily (and perhaps more comfortably) be made in reference to any particular religion and it's holy book?

That seems to fit

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

The book of Hypersmurf? I'd quote that, just say I did it.