Reach Weapon and Hold the Line

[Infiniti2000]

Not necessarily so.

Actually, very necessarily so.

The intent is provably only about charging because, based upon Artoomis's #2 interpretation, you could leave out the "entering a threatened square" entirely, with no loss of meaning. Why, you may ask? Because you can only attack someone when they are in a threatened square. Normally AoO rules mean that you can take one when they leave a threatened square, so the special rules on hold the line are intended to be focused on the charing, not on the change-of-meaning of a normal attack of opportunity.

 

[billd91]

Actually, very necessarily so.

The intent is provably only about charging because, based upon Artoomis's #2 interpretation, you could leave out the "entering a threatened square" entirely, with no loss of meaning. Why, you may ask? Because you can only attack someone when they are in a threatened square. Normally AoO rules mean that you can take one when they leave a threatened square, so the special rules on hold the line are intended to be focused on the charing, not on the change-of-meaning of a normal attack of opportunity.

Yes, Hold the Line applies explicitly to charging. I don't think Artoomis was really intending to imply that it works for all sorts of movement AoO.
But my comment about Hold the Line was intended to mean that defense against a charge does not mean the specific case of getting 2 AoO against a charging opponent. Even if you don't interpret the AoO rules like that, Hold the Line is still a useful defense against a charge for the reasons I lay out. And that's why it isn't necessarily the intent of the writers that Hold the Line provides > 1 AoO. That's what I mean by not being necessarily so.

 

[Artoomis]

Unfortanely, I do not own CW.

I am thinking now that the feat says something along the lines of you get to take an AoO agaionst a charging opponent without having to use a weapon that requires you ready an action against the charge.

Is that the essence of it?

If so, I still think that one AoO is appropriate. The AoO is from charging, where usually there is no AoO. I think having a reach weapon does not get you ANOTHER AoO here - this just "feels" like one opportunity - that is, the movement in the charge action.

 

[Artoomis]

Unfortanely, I do not own CW.

I am thinking now that the feat says something along the lines of you get to take an AoO agaionst a charging opponent without having to use a weapon that requires you ready an action against the charge.

Is that the essence of it?

If so, I still think that one AoO is appropriate. The AoO is from charging, where usually there is no AoO. I think having a reach weapon does not get you ANOTHER AoO here - this just "feels" like one opportunity - that is, the movement in the charge action.

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

Since no one has posted it yet (edit: actually, they have, I just haven't read the thread closely enough, bah):

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

The language used is very specific; the clause only applies to AoOs caused by moving out of a square. It does not apply to movement in general, and specifically does not apply to AoOs for enterying a square.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But my comment about Hold the Line was intended to mean that defense against a charge does not mean the specific case of getting 2 AoO against a charging opponent. Even if you don't interpret the AoO rules like that, Hold the Line is still a useful defense against a charge for the reasons I lay out. And that's why it isn't necessarily the intent of the writers that Hold the Line provides > 1 AoO. That's what I mean by not being necessarily so.

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?

 

[Artoomis]

Since no one has posted it yet (edit: actually, they have, I just haven't read the thread closely enough, bah):



The language used is very specific; the clause only applies to AoOs caused by moving out of a square. It does not apply to movement in general, and specifically does not apply to AoOs for enterying a square.

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?.

 

[Artoomis]

...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?

I'd say yes, and that it is a significant benefit.

<edit: retracted as misleading>

 

[Nail]

No.

I posted the text earlier in the thread. In a moment, I'll post the full text.

 

[Nail]

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.