Reach Weapon and Hold the Line

[Nail]

Of course, when written, there was no such thing as an AoO for entering a threatened square, so it really would not be mentioned, now, would it?.

"Movement in general" does not provoke an AoO. This feat does not change that.

 

[billd91]

Without allowing the second AoO, Hold the Line is not useful at all for someone with a reach weapon against someone without one. In fact, it's absolutely worthless because you get the AoO anyway. Considering the case where you have the same reach as the person who is charging, Hold the Line provides the exact same benefit whether you have a reach weapon or not.

So, is the intent of Hold the Line to improve the ability of any defender except those with reach weapons, where they should have the advantage? I argue no. Your interpretation is yes, correct?

Yes. The feat would be of no use, under my interpretation, where the defender already has reach over the attacker. In that case, they already had the advantage. The feat still gives new advantages to charge defenders who have the same reach as the attacker.

I was thinking on this and I can't find anything saying you can't get an AoO due to the charging attacker's movement as well as a readied action to set the spear against a charge. Does anybody know of any rule that makes them mutually exclusive?

 

[Nail]

A readied action has no effect on the ability to make an AoO.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the intent of Combat Reflexes is that one action produces one AoO opportunity, generally. There may be some exceptions that might prevent one from making that an absolute rule, but it seems about right to me.

If you take one full round action (full attack) and use it to attempt to a/ grapple, b/ disarm, and c/ punch someone, with no relevant feats, and that person has Combat Reflexes, would you consider your one full round action to provoke one AoO, or three?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And remember, folks - the 'X is gospel, and if you don't like it, house rule it!' stance is contraindicated by the sticky at the top of the forum.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Artoomis]

A readied action has no effect on the ability to make an AoO.

Correct - readying gets you double damage with a longspear. I may have started us down the wrong road there. My mistake, if I did.

Anyway, This feat is very, very useful to folks who don't use reach weapons often. To those who do use reach weapon often, it's superflous.

At least that's the way I read it.

 

[Deset Gled]

Of course, when written, there was no such thing as an AoO for entering a threatened square, so it really would not be mentioned, now, would it?.

Exactly. The rule doesn't cover this situation. So it doesn't apply.

Are you trying to argue that the rule for limiting the number of AoOs should apply to Hold the Line, or that it does apply? I can see an arguement for the former, but I see things as pretty cut and dry on the latter.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

HOLD THE LINE [General]
You are trained in defensive techniques against charging opponents.

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, base attack bonus +2.

Benefit: You may make an attack of opportunity against a charging opponent who enters an area you threaten. Your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved.

Normal: You only get an attack of opportunity against a character that exits a square you threaten.

That seems pretty clear to me: with a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes, you'd get one AoO when the charging opponent enters your threatened square, and another AoO when he leaves it.

 

[Artoomis]

Exactly. The rule doesn't cover this situation. So it doesn't apply.

Are you trying to argue that the rule for limiting the number of AoOs should apply to Hold the Line, or that it does apply? I can see an arguement for the former, but I see things as pretty cut and dry on the latter.

My actual point was only that you cannot say the absence of discssiing in core rules a rule that is introduced post-core is authoritative.

In other words, the fact that the core rules on Combat Reflexes mentions only leaving a square cannot be read to mean that a future rule that introduces an AoO for entering a square is (or is not) covered by one opportunuity.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In other words, the fact that the core rules on Combat Reflexes mentions only leaving a square cannot be read to mean that a future rule that introduces an AoO for entering a square is (or is not) covered by one opportunuity.

Huh?

So if the Undead type description in the Monster Manual states that undead are immune to effects that grant a Fort save unless it also affects objects...

... and in Complete Arcane, an effect that grants a Fort save but does not affect objects, that is activated as a swift action, is introduced...

... then we can't say whether or not undead are immune to that effect, since swift actions didn't exist when the Monster Manual was published?

-Hyp.