Provoking multiple AoOs...

[Li Shenron]

I'd go with the third interpretation. Each time you take a shot, you are 'attacking with a ranged weapon', and provoke an AoO.

I don't think Mordane was completely off. At least from the SRD (PHB may clear it out), it is possible to draw some conclusion that seems akward to us.

The SRD talks about "actions" which provoke an AoO, and a full attack is "one" full-round action -> one could say that shooting a ranged weapon more than once in a FRA provokes one AoO only.

Then another one may look up at the table (we know that tables aren't always to be trusted...) and notice that "full attack" says AoO=NO, and therefore think that if you shoot the ranged weapon with a full attack, you don't provoke any AoO.
This sounds to me just a problem of the table, with "full attack" referring to the general case, but then you should check if each specific attack of the series provokes an AoO (for example, if you try to disarm as one of the full attack's attacks).

I know, that (almost) everyone plays like that: each attack in a full attack may provoke a separate AoO. But I also see how it could be understood otherwise, if it's not clear whether the full-attack is a single "action" and if it's "one action" = one AoO, or rather if "one attack" = one AoO.

Not that in practice it has a great impact, I don't remember if it ever happened to us, that someone wanted to provoke an AoO twice in the same round AND had an opponent with Combat Reflexes who was able to do both. If it had happened, I'm sure we would have had in mind to make as many AoOs as provoking attacks...

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

Then another one may look up at the table (we know that tables aren't always to be trusted...) and notice that "full attack" says AoO=NO, and therefore think that if you shoot the ranged weapon with a full attack, you don't provoke any AoO.
This sounds to me just a problem of the table, with "full attack" referring to the general case, but then you should check if each specific attack of the series provokes an AoO (for example, if you try to disarm as one of the full attack's attacks).

The awkward thing is the table has entries where the possibility of provoking an AoO is "Maybe", not just "Yes and "No".

 

[Pickaxe]

I don't think Mordane was completely off. At least from the SRD (PHB may clear it out), it is possible to draw some conclusion that seems akward to us.

The SRD talks about "actions" which provoke an AoO, and a full attack is "one" full-round action -> one could say that shooting a ranged weapon more than once in a FRA provokes one AoO only.

Then another one may look up at the table (we know that tables aren't always to be trusted...) and notice that "full attack" says AoO=NO, and therefore think that if you shoot the ranged weapon with a full attack, you don't provoke any AoO.
This sounds to me just a problem of the table, with "full attack" referring to the general case, but then you should check if each specific attack of the series provokes an AoO (for example, if you try to disarm as one of the full attack's attacks).

I know, that (almost) everyone plays like that: each attack in a full attack may provoke a separate AoO. But I also see how it could be understood otherwise, if it's not clear whether the full-attack is a single "action" and if it's "one action" = one AoO, or rather if "one attack" = one AoO.

Not that in practice it has a great impact, I don't remember if it ever happened to us, that someone wanted to provoke an AoO twice in the same round AND had an opponent with Combat Reflexes who was able to do both. If it had happened, I'm sure we would have had in mind to make as many AoOs as provoking attacks...

The table makes sense if you think of full attack and attacking with a ranged weapon as separate, independent conditions. In other words, an archer firing from a threatened square does not provoke an AoO for using the full attack action, but he does for using a ranged weapon to attack. This allows the table to be consistent in saying that the general act of attacking does not provoke an AoO; it's the use of a ranged weapon that is the trigger.

--Axe

 

[sfedi]

I second that.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Combat Ref and Ranged Attacks..

IMHO, I would go with the option that each ranged attack can draw an AoO from a threatening opponent.

Here is my train of thought on this:

Ranged attacks within melee range draw an AoO because you are focused somewhere other than the sword hanging menancingly nearby.
Each shot requires you to focus somewhere else.

Combat Reflexes, IMX at least, is rarely taken as the times it comes into play are also rare. I have no problem giving a PC that ability to whack a silly Archer who chose to not take a 5' step back, even if it is 4 times in a row.

Of course, I also dislike the idea of Archers jumping into combat knowing that they can dish out 4 hits at the cost of maybe being hit once... and this coming from a guy who plays Archer's more often than not.

 

[Mordane76]

Of course, I also dislike the idea of Archers jumping into combat knowing that they can dish out 4 hits at the cost of maybe being hit once... and this coming from a guy who plays Archer's more often than not.

This statement right here is another reason I think it should be one for the full attack instead of one for each iterative... even in a situation where there could be up to four AoO, how many of them will actually hit, as opposed to simply being extra dice that have to be rolled?

Also, there is no penalty for being hit by an AoO if you're a combatant; spellcasters lose spells, why don't archers or swordsmen get interrupted by AoO? (This isn't a real question for Rules, more of a rhetorical)

 

[TheGogmagog]

Mordane, If you use Full attack action to make 3 trip attempts, or one trip one disarm and one sunder attempt, would you argue that either of these would draw only one attack of opportunity? I think that would be absurd, and the same thing to argue the archer would draw one attack of opportunity.

It would also seem that you are either arguing an extreamly rare situation, or have some extrodinary exploit planned. Most archers avoid melee range, those that do get in melee range can either 5' step or take a move action (with the ONE AoO you are after) to avoid being attacked for each arrow that leaves thier bow. Aside from all of these, you are arguing a case wich requires the Monster/NPC to have combat reflexes, which I would find a rare situation.

 

[Mordane76]

Actually, up until this point, I wouldn't have allowed a trip, sunder, or disarm as part of iterative attacks; I would have told a player that since it is a standard action to do so (as listed on the table) that it can't be part of a full attack. I went and re-read the SRD on these actions - it says "as a melee attack," whereas I thought they were 'standard actions,' as they are listed on the table.

Given this reading, I would agree that one should trigger an AoO on each iterative attack with the bow. But nowhere in the tables or the text does it state this directly.


I don't get to PLAY D&D at all - I haven't actually played as a player in a real game for years, and I haven't had the pleasure of being in a D&D PbP that's lasted more than a few pages. I have no exploit planned; it's just how I read the tables. The table versus the text leaves certain ambiguities; reading the table, I wouldn't allow someone to mix and match sunder, trip, and disarm into a full attack as they are separate standard actions in the table. Reading the text, I would, and thus each would trigger the AoO. And, just because you find Combat Reflexes to be rare doesn't mean I do - Combat Reflexes makes players think long and hard about how they move and what they do, and I find it astounding that more people don't take it given the opportunity for extra attacks it provides.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Sorry I assumed you had something up your sleeve. Well, I believe it's been mentioned in a few sage advice responses and FAQ that you always follow text over tables. Hence:

Then another one may look up at the table (we know that tables aren't always to be trusted...)

Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, with the 3.0 supplimental books (call of wild maybe?), there was a prestige class for archers that allowed you to fire with a bow without provoking attacks of opportunity.

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, with the 3.0 supplimental books (call of wild maybe?), there was a prestige class for archers that allowed you to fire with a bow without provoking attacks of opportunity.

That PrC is Order of the Bow Initiate. I guess the book you mean is Masters of the Wild, but it's not there. It's in Sword and Fist. You can find the 3.5 version in Complete Warrior.