Reach Attacks

[Hervis]

Two questions.

First.
Is a creature with reach (say a hill giant) still subject to an AoO when he tries to disarm a longsword-weilding fighter at 10'?

Second
Along the same vein, Can the same hill giant use a grapple to pick up said fighter and throw him down his hill?

If either of these work can someone explain the mechanics behind it.

Thanks in advance,
Hervis

 

[CRGreathouse]

Is a creature with reach (say a hill giant) still subject to an AoO when he tries to disarm a longsword-weilding fighter at 10'?

Only if the fighter can hit the giant from where he is sanding - a giant could step 5' back from a human fighter with a longsword and the fighter couldn't hit back.

Along the same vein, Can the same hill giant use a grapple to pick up said fighter and throw him down his hill?

That's a non-stanard use of a mechanic, and thus the DM's realm.

 

[Artoomis]

Is a creature with reach (say a hill giant) still subject to an AoO when he tries to disarm a longsword-weilding fighter at 10'?

I think the technical answer is no, because the fighter does not threaten the giant.

However, I'd allow it, because the giant must clearly be in the fighter's threatened spaces at the time of the disarm (or at least, some of him must me).

This is the same logic I'd use to allow a disarm or sunder attempt by the fighter - but only on a readied action - he attempts the disarm or sunder when the giant's weapon in within the fighter's reach. It's not, strictly speaking, by the rules, but I think it makes sense and should be done.

 

[Kyamsil]

Two questions.

First.
Is a creature with reach (say a hill giant) still subject to an AoO when he tries to disarm a longsword-weilding fighter at 10'?

Only if the fighters threatens the giant, if they are within 5' yes, if they are 10' apart not.

Second
Along the same vein, Can the same hill giant use a grapple to pick up said fighter and throw him down his hill?

If either of these work can someone explain the mechanics behind it.

Thanks in advance,
Hervis

About fighter hurling giants... I suppose it would be possible. The giant must be at least two sizes larger than the fighter. First, if the giant wants to hurl the fighter with one hand, all grapple checks would be at the standard -20 penalty. Of course, this grapple would provoke an AoO as normal.

If the giant succeeds (and is not dealt damage with the AoO) then I would rule that another grapple check is needed for the giant to lift the fighter off the ground and another to hurl the fighter. The fighter isn't an object so he is not going to leave the giant hurl him. So, I would say that the distance thrown is just 10' for each 5 points of fraction that the giant beats the fighter on the grapple check. As for damage, I would use damage from a fall of the same height as the distance hurled plus the damage modifier of the giant.

 

[Number47]

I would treat throwing down a hill as a modified bull rush.

 

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Reach Attacks

I think the technical answer is no, because the fighter does not threaten the giant.

However, I'd allow it, because the giant must clearly be in the fighter's threatened spaces at the time of the disarm (or at least, some of him must me).

This is the same logic I'd use to allow a disarm or sunder attempt by the fighter - but only on a readied action - he attempts the disarm or sunder when the giant's weapon in within the fighter's reach. It's not, strictly speaking, by the rules, but I think it makes sense and should be done.

I agree with Artoomis.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Reach Attacks

I think the technical answer is no, because the fighter does not threaten the giant.

Actually, I think the technical answer is yes, not no.

Typically, in order to get an AoO, you must threaten your opponent.

However, disarm does not talk about it happening if the target threatens you. It explicitly states that the target gets an AoO. Period. In the case of a Giant, you could hit him or do anything you could do to an opponent. In the case of a reach weapon, you could only counter-disarm or sunder the weapon.

Now, the real question comes down to whether you get the AoO if you are grappled. The reason for this is that while you are grappled, you do not threaten anything around you. So, if one opponent successfully grapples you and then the second opponent attempts a disarm, do you get the AoO against the second opponent because disarm explicitly states that you get an AoO? Or, do you not get an AoO because the grapple rules state that you do not threaten when grappled and the AoO rules state that you normally only get an AoO when you threaten an area?

I think the best answer here is that you can only AoO whenever a rules states it. The very act of disarming provokes an AoO. However, if you are grappled, you cannot take AoOs since you threaten nothing (i.e. you are busy). Hence, just like if you have used up all of your AoOs for the round, you do not get one while grappled.

However, I am not sure that the rules are quite so clear on this.

Caliban?

 

[Artoomis]

Attack of opportunity: A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

That's the rule as written. I think it reasonable to tweak the "within reach" part as I stated earlier, but that's not, strictly speaking, the rule.

edit: Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - which is to say, my tweak would apply equally well to when the PCs are using reach weapons to sunder or disarm.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Reach Attacks

In the case of a reach weapon, you could only counter-disarm or sunder the weapon.

Wow, Disarm wackiness!

Al and Bob, first level fighters, are fighting ten feet apart - Al's spiked chain vs Bob's longsword.

Al attempts to disarm Bob (attack A1). This provokes an AoO from Bob, who can only attempt to disarm or sunder - he chooses to attempt a Disarm (B1). This in turn provokes an AoO from Al, who also chooses to Disarm (A2). Bob can only take one AoO against Al per round, so they make opposed attack rolls - Bob wins, is not disarmed, and immediately reacts with a disarm attempt of his own - which fails.

The consequences of the AoO A2 are now resolved, so we start on B1. Al successfully defeats Bob's disarm attempt (that Spiked Chain +2 disarm bonus sure comes in handy!), and immediately reacts with a disarm attempt - unfortunately, unsuccessful.

With B1 now resolved, the initial action, A1, finally takes place. Al's d20 betrays him once more, and leaves him open to a reactive disarm attempt from Bob. Which, naturally, fails.

Now it's Bob's action - he takes a 5' step forward and tries to disarm Al. He fails, and Al reacts in the traditional fashion.

Woo! Eight opposed disarm checks, with no haste, no Combat Reflexes, and no iterative attacks! Cool

This is what happens when people fail to notice locked gauntlets...

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

” Attack of opportunity: A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.”

That's the rule as written. I think it reasonable to tweak the "within reach" part as I stated earlier, but that's not, strictly speaking, the rule.

Oh no! Another generic glossary definition taken as the only rule that applies.

Page 137 “In doing so, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.”

It does not state that you only do so if he threatens you. Combining the AoO rules with the Disarm rules and a little common sense means that if it is a creature with reach (without a weapon) attempts to disarm you, part of him is within your threatened space, hence you can do whatever you wish to him (even a trip).

If it is a reach weapon or a creature with reach with a weapon, you can only AoO the weapon since the creature is not within your threat range, only the weapon.

Now, you can rules lawyer state that the second one cannot happen since AoOs talk about threatened creatures and not threatened weapons, but you cannot state that for the first one. And, I think the explicit way in which the disarm rule definitively states that the defender does get an AoO indicates that this is an exception to the normal AoO threatening rules (i.e. it overrides it) since some aspect of the opponent (minimally his weapon if not himself) is within the threatened area. YMMV.