Grapple and AoO Question

[Infinite_Kydeem]

...You want to be able to grapple them and then pin them in one round, to avoid the subsequent dimension door...

Good point. I didn't think of that. I will have to consider taking improved grapple (and improved unarmed strike) after all.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

That would mean that the DM was metagaming.

Yeah, just like the player is when he "walks around him" in order to use up the enemy's AoO!

 

[werk]

Yeah, just like the player is!

wrong + wrong = ?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

right + right = right

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with Orgork on this one, its just as metagamey for the player as it is for the dm. Afterall, there's a reason you can choose not to take AOOs.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yeah, just like the player is when he "walks around him" in order to use up the enemy's AoO!

Not even the same. The "walk around" bit is in response to a game mechanic. The PC knows he will provoke an AoO and thus provokes one on purpose so as to reduce the chances of the opponent foiling his grapple attempt.

What Stalker0 suggest, however, is the DM using future knowledge in the present. The Player (not the PC) states what he will do and the DM uses the knowledge of the future (grappling, not yet known by the NPC) to act now.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Afterall, there's a reason you can choose not to take AOOs.

If the NPC has reason to believe or can logical discern that the PC plans to grapple him, then sure. It's not metagaming. It's just tactics. He may be wrong or he may be right. However, I don't think that's what you intended (it's not what I inferred at any rate). The DM KNOWS there will be a grapple attempt and you predicated the NPC's actions based on that. THAT is metagaming.

 

[starwed]

The PC knows he will provoke an AoO and thus provokes one on purpose so as to reduce the chances of the opponent foiling his grapple attempt.

In other words, the PC is deliberately trying to trick his opponent. I'd probably allow an intelligent opponent a sense motive vs. the PC's bluff on this one. When you see your opponent deliberately expose themselves to danger, you're going to be on the lookout for some sort of deception.

I'd give a -5 penalty to the sense motive, though, because taking an attack when your opponent drops your guard kind of falls under the "wants to believe the bluff" category.

Also, although I doubt there's any specific rule for this, I'd allow someone to simply drop their guard and provoke an AoO if they wanted to.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, to be sure the movement will most likely be odd. It depends on what else is happening though. The PC could be moving into flanking position, perhaps so that it's easier for someone else to move up. Or, maybe a comrade of the PC is planning something on the vacated side. Or, maybe the PC plans on doing a bull rush in a particular direction. Or, whatever. There are lots of reasons and allowing a sense motive or whatever would be fine, but I would only say it would tell you that the AoO was intended to be provoked, not that the PC was planning on grappling.

 

[SlagMortar]

It would make a great deal of sense for a spell caster to only take attacks of opportunity to prevent himself from being grappled. After all, is it better to do your 1d4 points of damage, or prevent yourself from being grappled?