Wanting to provoke an AoO

moritheil said:
Plus, it smells of metagaming. People heroically throw themselves in front of monsters; they do not heroically declare game mechanics.

They don't need to.

"I want to momentarily drop my guard, so that the orc pays more attention to me instead of Tordek, who's trying to get past him."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The issue for me is clearly how a person draws an AoO on purpose. Would their Dex bonus to AC be affected? I mean what's more alluring to a creature than a PC who stops their fighting stance and simply stands there all of a sudden. That's taking into account making it a free action. If you don't make it a free action then you are simply stuck waiting for your turn to do the action which would probably often nullify the whole situation. Generally people don't think so far ahead as to know that PC A needs to purposefully draw an AoO so that PC B and PC C (who go after him in the round) can run by the non-Combat Reflexes creature. I would assume that is why the original poster mentioned this as being a free action. I don't actually have a huge issue with it being a free action as long as it is established that your losing something big on your AC or the "provoked" is getting some other bonus to hit.
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
"I want to momentarily drop my guard, so that the orc pays more attention to me instead of Tordek, who's trying to get past him."

You don't need to know the rules to say that. All you need is an imagination. Meanwhile, player's who are slaved to the rules are not doing it because they believe it is impossible. The rules don't cover it, therefore it doesn't exist in their world.

But it exists in my world, therefore a rule must exist to cover it.
 


Even if it's a free action (like reloading a hand crossbow with Rapid Reload) you still have to wait for your turn. I think that's essential. The whole point is that you are trying to coordinate your actions. If you can just declare this kind of thing willy-nilly it would be chaos.

And to answer Len's question: yes, if the character has some feat that allows him to take a provoking action as a Free action, then obviously that's fine. As others have pointed out, a smart opponent may not take his AoO just because you've provoked one. For example, say a big tough lieutenant type is trying to hold back the PCs while his boss casts spells at them. The party fighter is toe-to-toe with said lieutenant and reloads his crossbow (or whatever) to provoke. The lieutenant KNOWS the fighter is hard to hit, KNOWS the fighter isn't moving past him, and KNOWS the rest of the party would love to get past him at the boss. He won't take the AoO because he has to maintain a credible threat to keep the rogue from just running past him. Of course, if he has Combat Reflexes he might take it anyway, hoping to entice the rogue...

Do the same thing to an owlbear and it'll take the AoO every time. Perfectly reasonable.
 

Infiniti2000 said:
Before allowing it, you'd have to define what you feel an attack of opportunity really is. It seems like you want this tactic purely for the metagame reason and not for a good reason.
"I leave an obvious hole in my defences so as to distract my opponent while my ally does something."

Seems a valid tactic to me.
 

Thanee said:
Exactly, and therefore I would not allow it. :)

If you want to provoke, perform an action that does (the fighter could try a disarm with one attack, for example).

Bye
Thanee

I agree. I probably would've sheathed my weapon. That provokes and the enemy thinks "He's defenseless; I have him now" and attacks.
 


I'm not sure I'd allow it as a free action, but I've used this tactic in many games to "soak" an AoO before grappling. But I've always just moved past/around the enemy.

I imagine it like wrestlers who circle each other on the mat before one finally takes a swipe at the other, and the other immediately counters.

Spider
 

Celebrim said:
You don't need to know the rules to say that. All you need is an imagination. Meanwhile, player's who are slaved to the rules are not doing it because they believe it is impossible. The rules don't cover it, therefore it doesn't exist in their world.

But it exists in my world, therefore a rule must exist to cover it.

What, can't contain your arguments with me to a single thread?
 

Remove ads

Top