New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[melkoriii]

I don't know - I always thought of it more as "If I can draw an attack from him, he'll be out of position so I can then drink my potion (or cast my spell... etc.).

I don't like the fact that recursive AoO's are now possible.

I can see it now:

A Trips: Provokes AoO from B
B uses AoO to Trip - Provokes AoO from A
A AoO is to Disarm. Provokes AoO from B[/i]
B uses AoO to Disarm. Provokes AoO from A
A uses AoO to Grapple. Provokes AoO from B
B uses AoO to strike A's weapon. Provokes AoO from A
A uses AoO to strike B's weapon, Provoking an AoO from B.
B uses AoO to AoO to attack A

You might note that neither A nor B ever repeats an action, so even if the two if the repeated identical actions won't draw an AoO rule is applied it won't help here.

Now, not only do you have the rest of the group of players sitting around twiddling their thumbs whole this sequence is worked, but a very odd resolution since we have to work from the last action backwords because an AoO interrupts an action.

It looks like one of those time travel paradoxes is possible - if you eliminate the possibility for the AoO chain to start, what happens to all those AoOs?

For example:

I grapple (and pin?) him with my AoO, so he could not have attempted to disarm me.

So far, so good.

But wait - he was attempting to disarm me because I was attepting to break his weapon which was in response to him moving out my my threatened square.

If he is now pinned, he could not have been attempting to move, because I was only responding to his attempted disarm at the time I grappled him, This means that he could not have been attempting the action that drew the AoO when I grappled him. Now what?

It gets confusing, and paper and pencil will be needed to simply keep track of it all, since the AoO's are not resolved until the entire sequence is laid out.

Bad rule - adds complexity.

AoO dont stop the action that prevoked it.

Though if your AoO is a Grapple from someone moving away, you still grapple them.

If some one drinks a Potion and you AoO with a normal Attack, he still drinks his potion. Now if you used your AoO to attack the Potion then he still *trys* to drink but there is no potion left for him to do so.



I am all for the "An AoO can not prevoke a AoO."

 

[drnuncheon]

It looks like one of those time travel paradoxes is possible - if you eliminate the possibility for the AoO chain to start, what happens to all those AoOs?

Note that an AoO is resolved before the triggering action is resolved - that does not mean that the triggering action is never attempted.

Person A starts to grapple, person B takes an AoO. The AoO is resolved before the grapple is, but that does not mean the grapple was not attempted - it means that A started to grapple, and B interrupted him before he was done.

To go back to your example:

A Trips: Provokes AoO from B
B uses AoO to Trip - Provokes AoO from A

From the SRD:
Trip an opponent [Varies][AoO: No]

So the chain ends before it even began.

In my experience, most people don't take AoO-provoking actions when they're making an AoO - and many people don't use the AoO-provoking actions until they have the Improved version so they can do it safely. I really think your worry is overstated.

(You could of course solve this very simply by saying an AoO can only be an attack, and not any other standard action.)

J

 

[Artoomis]

Note that an AoO is resolved before the triggering action is resolved - that does not mean that the triggering action is never attempted.

Except in the case of oddball AoO chains. The first action in time (because AoO's go first) can set things up so that the first attempted action cannot even be attempted. A Paradox.

Person A starts to grapple, person B takes an AoO. The AoO is resolved before the grapple is, but that does not mean the grapple was not attempted - it means that A started to grapple, and B interrupted him before he was done.

True - for a single event this is easy.

To go back to your example:

From the SRD:
Trip an opponent [Varies][AoO: No]

So the chain ends before it even began.

Yes, yes - my mistake. My point still holds, though.

In my experience, most people don't take AoO-provoking actions when they're making an AoO - and many people don't use the AoO-provoking actions until they have the Improved version so they can do it safely. I really think your worry is overstated.

(You could of course solve this very simply by saying an AoO can only be an attack, and not any other standard action.)

J

Okay, so my example was messed up. The point remains - it is quite possible to have AoO recursive events now. For a single event and it's AoO the logic and mechanics hold up juyst fine - it starts to break down for mutiple events with the same two people.

You could have, say, 6 events (3 by each person) Event 1 triggers AoO1 , which triggers AoO 2 which, in turn, triggers AoO 3 then AoO 4 then AoO 5 and finally AoO 6.

6 interrupts 5, and it might be that Event 1 is no longer possible because, say, the target was disarmed or grappled or something. Paradox - you can't have 6 without 1 through 5 being attempted, but 6 creates the situaion where 1 cannot even be attempted.

Let's run though a very simple example. Let's assume that A attempts to grapple B. B in turn atempts to disarm A, who attempts to to break B's weapon, who attempts to grapple (and pin) A.

If B is succesfull pinning A, then A is clearly prevented from breaking B's weapon. But, given that A is pinned, A cannot even begin the sequence of events that leads up to him failing to be able to attempt to break B's weapon.

Of course, it's also possible to set up a sequence of events that never ends if the repeated event rule does not apply to distinct event that happen to have the same name - such as grapple attempts in response to grapple events which were, in turn, in reponse to a grapple event. Even if the rule does apply, you could do other actions before repeating one and easily become confused.

It's just plain silly. Just running though these examples makes my head hurt! If you can only get one AoO per person with Combat Reflexes there is no issue.

You are right, though, that if you are restricted to simple melee attacks (a weapon strike only) the problem goes away, but so do many of your combat options.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If some one drinks a Potion and you AoO with a normal Attack, he still drinks his potion. Now if you used your AoO to attack the Potion then he still *trys* to drink but there is no potion left for him to do so.

If you try and drink a potion, but incur an AoO in doing so, and your opponent DOES hit you, don't you have to make some sort of Concentration check to see if you continue to drink the potion?

As an aside...

In my last session I wanted to cast a spell from a scroll, but I was in a threat range at the time. So I wanted to cast "on the defensive". We weren't clear if you could Cast Defensively with a scroll, but my DM rules it was ok to do. Anyone know the correct answer?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I don't know - I always thought of it more as "If I can draw an attack from him, he'll be out of position so I can then drink my potion (or cast my spell... etc.).

I saw it the same way. It really only mattered for spellcasting but the idea was the same. It's basically a faint IMO though,so I required a bluff check in order to pull it off. If the bluff failed the person would see it as a faint trying to draw an attack away from something. They wouldn't be sure what but something.

 

[Artoomis]

I saw it the same way. It really only mattered for spellcasting but the idea was the same. It's basically a faint IMO though,so I required a bluff check in order to pull it off. If the bluff failed the person would see it as a faint trying to draw an attack away from something. They wouldn't be sure what but something.

That's nice. A bluff check is appropriate.

 

[Pielorinho]

Let's run though a very simple example. Let's assume that A attempts to grapple B. B in turn atempts to disarm A, who attempts to to break B's weapon, who attempts to grapple (and pin) A.

If B is succesfull pinning A, then A is clearly prevented from breaking B's weapon. But, given that A is pinned, A cannot even begin the sequence of events that leads up to him failing to be able to attempt to break B's weapon.

Of course, it's also possible to set up a sequence of events that never ends if the repeated event rule does not apply to distinct event that happen to have the same name [/B]

Frank and Liza circle around one another warily, Liza swiping the air in front of her with a glowing longsword every few seconds. Frank, for his part, smacks one palm with a heavy spiked club.

Suddenly, Frank lunges forward, attempting to close inside of the sword's reach and grapple Liza. Liza, acting quickly, lashes out with her sword at Frank's club.

Frank sees the blow coming; rather than deflect it, he attempts to catch the longsword's blade between two of the club's spikes and break it off. But that's all that Liza needs: as Frank's distracted by this maneuver, Liza darts forward and grabs Frank with her free hand, pinning him up against a wall. Frank wriggles there, unable to bring his club to bear.

How is this in any way a time paradox? It's the attempt to perform an action that incurs an AoO; if somebody uses their AoO to render your attempted action unattemptable, it just means you can't complete it.

And there's no such thing as "a sequence of events that never ends": the number of AoOs a person with combat reflexes can take is limited by their dexterity bonus.

I think chains like this will happen extremely rarely (i.e., only when two opponents with combat reflexes face off against each other, one incurs an AoO, and each combatant decides to use each AoO for an action that incurs another AoO). On the very rare occasions when they occur, I expect that it'd be a lot of fun, as the characters jockey back and forth for dominance. Finally, the NPC will win (eliciting a chorus of delighted, "Oh, crap!"s from the players) or the PC will win ("W00t!" the players shout).

I don't see this as a problem. If the rules set it up so this would happen once per combat, that'd be a problem. But I suspect it'll be an extraordinary event if it happens once per campaign.

Daniel

 

[drnuncheon]

Except in the case of oddball AoO chains. The first action in time (because AoO's go first) can set things up so that the first attempted action cannot even be attempted. A Paradox.[/b]

Still not a paradox, because you started the action before the AoO, you just did not resolve it.

Don't think of each action as being atomic. Each action has two parts: initiation and resolution. AoOs (if triggered) occur in the middle.

A: Initiate Disarm
B: AoO - initiate disarm
A: AoO - initiate strike a weapon
B: AoO - initiate strike a weapon
A: AoO - strike B
B: resolve strike a weapon, breaks A's weapon
A: resolve strike a weapon - fails (weapon broke)
B: resolve disarm - fails (no weapon to disarm)
A: resolve disarm - fails (no weapon to disarm with)

There's no paradox, because you still *tried* to perform the action. If the AoO makes it impossible, you don't get to go back and choose another action - you just lose the action.

J

 

[Artoomis]

Frank and Liza circle around one another warily, Liza swiping the air in front of her with a glowing longsword every few seconds. Frank, for his part, smacks one palm with a heavy spiked club.

Suddenly, Frank lunges forward, attempting to close inside of the sword's reach and grapple Liza. Liza, acting quickly, lashes out with her sword at Frank's club.

Frank sees the blow coming; rather than deflect it, he attempts to catch the longsword's blade between two of the club's spikes and break it off. But that's all that Liza needs: as Frank's distracted by this maneuver, Liza darts forward and grabs Frank with her free hand, pinning him up against a wall. Frank wriggles there, unable to bring his club to bear.

Nice description.

How is this in any way a time paradox? It's the attempt to perform an action that incurs an AoO; if somebody uses their AoO to render your attempted action unattemptable, it just means you can't complete it.

And there's no such thing as "a sequence of events that never ends": the number of AoOs a person with combat reflexes can take is limited by their dexterity bonus.

That, of course, it true.

Maybe it's not so big a problem. I still see it as an unneeded complexity, though.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A: AoO - initiate strike a weapon

Can't.

Table 8-4.

-Hyp.