Reach Weapon and Hold the Line

[Perinon]

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.

Maybe i'm being really dense here, but REGARDLESS of whether or not you might or might not be entitled to 1 or 2 AoO's here based on the movement AoO rules, doesn't the "your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved" sort of trump that? I read that as saying "you get an AoO as he enters the threatened area, and then the next thing that MUST resolve is his charge attack (which would therefore preclude any AoO for leaving the threatened square)

Am i being dense and inflexible here?

 

[Aaron L]

Maybe i'm being really dense here, but REGARDLESS of whether or not you might or might not be entitled to 1 or 2 AoO's here based on the movement AoO rules, doesn't the "your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved" sort of trump that? I read that as saying "you get an AoO as he enters the threatened area, and then the next thing that MUST resolve is his charge attack (which would therefore preclude any AoO for leaving the threatened square)

Am i being dense and inflexible here?

I think its saying "your attack happens before his, so you may be able to kill him before he hits you."

 

[Artoomis]

How so?

The AoOs for movement that get rolled up into one provocation are those for leaving a threatened square.

The effects with Fort saves that undead are subject to are those that affect objects.

If a new source introduces an effect with a Fort save that does not affect objects, undead are not subject to it.

If a new source introduces an AoO for movement that does not result from leaving a threatened square, it doesn't get rolled up into one provocation.

How are the situations at all different?

-Hyp.

The situation are different because Fort saves that do not affect objects likely already exist.

In this case folks are trying to apply a core rule that simply did not anticipate the "complete" book adding a new situation. This means that one must anaylyze and see if it seems to be "one opportunity" or two. I am not saying that this new opportunity for an AoO MUST be iuncluded, I am saying it MAY be included. Most certainly, however, it cannot be absolutely excluded because this situtation did not exist when the core rules were written. Logic must be applied and an analysis done to determine if this fits as one opportunity or not.

 

[Artoomis]

I think its saying "your attack happens before his, so you may be able to kill him before he hits you."

Well, the strict reading crowd that wants two AoOs should, I think, have to read the feat as indeed disallowing the second AoO by it strict language:

"Your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved."

You cannot have another AoO from leaving a threatened square by this language.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You cannot have another AoO from leaving a threatened square by this language.

So, if he was charging with his fist held high (an unarmed strike without IUS), I wouldn't get a second AoO? Does, this mean that even, say, an ogre with reach wouldn't get two attacks of opportunity in such a case? How does the charge attack occur from ten feet away before he provokes a second attack of opportunity?

Logic must be applied and an analysis done to determine if this fits as one opportunity or not.

Sure, and that's what we're doing. We're using logic and analysis to prove that you get two attacks of opportunity.

 

[Artoomis]

So, if he was charging with his fist held high (an unarmed strike without IUS), I wouldn't get a second AoO? Does, this mean that even, say, an ogre with reach wouldn't get two attacks of opportunity in such a case? How does the charge attack occur from ten feet away before he provokes a second attack of opportunity?

Well, I just quoted the rule without applying any logic or common sense, that's all.

Sure, and that's what we're doing. We're using logic and analysis to prove that you get two attacks of opportunity.

That's fine. Just do not use the core rule statment about "leaving a threatened area" excluding the "entering a square" new situation as supporting your argument. It doesn't. Other things do support your argument, and that's fine.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, I just quoted the rule without applying any logic or common sense, that's all.

To what end? Don't bring up an argument that you're not willing to defend or pursue. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

 

[Artoomis]

To what end? Don't bring up an argument that you're not willing to defend or pursue. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

I was making a point. Quoting rules without any analysis does not work. This is also true of quoting the "one opportunity" rule and stating it absolutely does not apply to the new situation despite the fact that this new situation could not possibly have been considered when that line was written (because it did not exists).

Some folks, not all, have done exactly that (quoting the "one opportunity" rule without any analysis).

 

[TheGogmagog]

It seems the feat was written with the assumption that both combatants will have weapons with the same reach. As it is, if you have a reach weapon only and the charger does not, you can't resolve your attack just before his attack, because the character is in a non-threatened square when he makes his attack.

This must be why the first poster mentioned both gauntlets and the spear. One attack with the spear because of moving through threatened spaces, and one attack with the gauntlets resolved just before the charger's attack.

If you only have a reach weapon, and the attacker does not the wording of the feat doesn't make sense as you can't satisfy both requirements.

"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."

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is also true of quoting the "one opportunity" rule and stating it absolutely does not apply to the new situation despite the fact that this new situation could not possibly have been considered when that line was written (because it did not exists).

But the one opportunity rule could have been considered when the new feat was written.

If I have a spell that affects 1 creature / level (all gnomes in the area are considered to constitute a single creature), and subsequently the Expanded Psionics Handbook is published, do three half-giants count as three creatures or one creature for the purposes of the spell?

I maintain that the answer is not "There's no way of telling, because half-giants didn't exist when the spell was written!" The answer is "Three creatures, because nothing in the half-giant description states that they also count as a single creature for the purposes of the pre-existing spell".

-Hyp.