Trip/disarm at reach

[Ydars]

Hi All,

I have had a situation come up in a 3.5 game where the rules as written are not clear.

A PC is using various reach weapons to trip and disarm at 10 ft (2 squares).

My question is; if the foes he is attempting to trip/disarm don't have reach (i.e. don't threaten him) can they attempt to trip/disarm him reactively if his trip/disarm attempt fails?

 

[Empirate]

I'd say yes, the defenders don't need to reach the attacker himself, only his weapon. After all, the attacker can let go of his weapon to negate the counter-trip attempt. I imagine it as the defender getting a hold on the attacker's weapon and pulling hard to get him off balance.

 

[Ydars]

Hi Empirate,

I agree with you, from a real-world point of view, but I was wondering if anyone has an official ruling from WoTC on this matter, given that it must have been a common question, given all the spiked chain fighter builds that were once in vogue.

 

[frankthedm]

Agree that the creature with reach / weapon with reach was placed in harms way and should suffer the AoO.

This subject was addressed by the FAQ in one of it's better entries. It explains the the RAW, the problem with the RAW and how to deal with the problem.

Official D&D Game Rule FAQ
Q: If an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all?

A:Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. Thus, if an ogre tried to sunder your elf’s longsword from 10 feet away, you wouldn’t get an attack of opportunity against the ogre (since an elf wielding a longsword doesn’t threaten an enemy 10 feet away). This is true even if the ogre is reaching out with his hand, such as when trying to grapple you.

Even the Close-Quarters Fighting feat doesn’t help, since that feat applies only when the attack of opportunity against a grappling foe normally would be denied by “a feat or special ability that would normally bypass the attack” and lists Improved Grapple and improved grab as examples.

If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact with you or your space, you can make an attack of opportunity against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I think that's about an official a ruling as you're likely to get, and it also seems pretty fair, to boot.

 

[Dross]

A PC is using various reach weapons to trip and disarm at 10 ft (2 squares).

Just to make sure, these various reach weapons allow you to make trips? Otherwise it takes an unarmed attack:
From the PHB: guisarme and whip

 

[Iku Rex]

My question is; if the foes he is attempting to trip/disarm don't have reach (i.e. don't threaten him) can they attempt to trip/disarm him reactively if his trip/disarm attempt fails?

Yes. The counter-trip/disarm is not an attack of opportunity. It's a built in part of the trip/disarm rules.

 

[Ydars]

Thanks for the replies so far. But to be clear, I ain't talking about AoOs, as the rules for those are quite clear in that you have to threaten a square to make an AoO and in the situation I describe above, the monsters without reach don't threaten the PC, and so can't make AoOs.

I am talking about the reactive trip/disarm attempt you get automatically if someone tries to trip/disarm you and fails. I am trying to work out if those reactive free attacks can happen if the foe a PC was trying (and failing) to trip/disarm does not threaten the PC?

I think in principle, that I agree with Empirate but was wondering about official rulings.

If you read the old 'tactics' and 'rules of the game' columns on the WoTC website, it still isn't really clear, though they all state that you can't make AoOs against a foe you don't threaten.

Dross; you can trip with a number of reach weapons, including those you list and a spiked chain. Heck you can even trip with a bolas (ranged weapon) from 30 feet away if you are proficient.

 

[frankthedm]

I am talking about the reactive trip/disarm attempt you get automatically if someone tries to trip/disarm you and fails. I am trying to work out if those reactive free attacks can happen if the foe a PC was trying (and failing) to trip/disarm does not threaten the PC?

Those don't use reach mechanics, and the rules don't give them any requirements to happen, such as reach. The maneuver was attempted, the counter maneuver occurs. This is why the bolas were worded as they were.

Bolas
You can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent. You can’t be tripped during your own trip attempt when using a set of bolas.

 

[Deset Gled]

Agree that the creature with reach / weapon with reach was placed in harms way and should suffer the AoO.

This subject was addressed by the FAQ in one of it's better entries. It explains the the RAW, the problem with the RAW and how to deal with the problem.

Note that the sage's house rule here affects two separate rules. First (and explicitly) he's allowing an AoO when one would normally not be allowed. Second (and implicitly) he's allowing Sunder to be used in place of an attack action. According to the RAW, Sunder is explicitly a Standard action, and cannot be used to replace a melee attack as disarm and grapple attempts can. This second house rule may opening a much larger can of worms than originally intended.