Wanting to provoke an AoO

[Pielorinho]

Whoa--metathread arguments are not a good sign, folks. While differences in gaming philosophy may lead to similar arguments in different threads, please make sure the arguments remain civil and focused on the issues, not on the other posters.

Thanks, Spider, for the tip--I'll watch for that in your bad guys from now on!

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

"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.

(I'm just quoting apesamongus, but others have a similar point.) I agree that distracting your opponent while your buddy does something is a valid tactic, but I still think that this example and all the others presented in this thread are metagaming solely because the player 'knows' that the opponent has only one AoO (combat reflexes not withstanding). This is why I said it depends on what you really view an AoO as. In other words, the player should not have the concept that once the opponent attacks one person, he cannot attack another until 6 seconds have passed or at least until he goes again, taking blatant advantage of the cyclical nature of D&D (d20) combat. There's no way to describe that.

Unfortunately, the thing that's missing here is facing. That's how I remember any heroic or cinematic distraction occurring. "Hey, look over here." The opponent doesn't take the AoO on your ally because he isn't aware of your ally moving. There must be a better mechanic to handle this (ala houserule), but I'm not sure what it should be. Probably a bluff check.

 

[Pielorinho]

In other words, the player should not have the concept that once the opponent attacks one person, he cannot attack another until 6 seconds have passed or at least until he goes again, taking blatant advantage of the cyclical nature of D&D (d20) combat. There's no way to describe that.

A character knows that most folks, when they extend themselves to make an AoO, cannot recover from that extension rapidly enough to make another AoO right away. After all, they observe this in fights all the time. I don't think it's metagaming for them to try to take advantage of this, any more than it's metagaming for a character to declare power attack more often when using a 2-handed weapon than when using a 1-handed weapon. They acting in accordance with their observations about their world.

Daniel

 

[JimAde]

Right. And they will be surprised the first time an opponent gets more AoO than they "should" just as in reality they might say "wow, that guy is fast." And if the opponent looks especially competent (i.e. he might have Combat Reflexes) they could reasonably think the trick might not work. It's just a matter of labels. My players and I use rules descriptions sometimes so we all understand clearly what's going on. But the characters don't.

 

[Pielorinho]

In general, I only consider it metagaming if a character can't come up with a halfway-decent in-game explanation of what he's doing. If the explanation is halfway-decent, I'll shrug and allow it, unless it breaks one of my other guidelines (e.g., my guideline against "magic bullet" effects, simple strategies that overwhelm almost all challenges and make the character with the strategy far more powerful than other party members).

Daniel

 

[atom crash]

You could think of a multitude of good reasons to justify this action without resorting to metagaming:

"If I try to grab that guy's arm (grappling), I can keep him from attacking my weaker wizard buddy."

"I can move in front of that bad guy (movement that provokes an AoO) in order to shield my buddy as he moves into position."

"if I try to knock that guy's weapon aside (disarm attempt), I can keep him from attacking my buddy."

These are all logical and likely thoughts of a tactical fighter, without resorting to "I have a good AC and my opponent only gets one AoO per round."

The rules allow characters to operate and specialize in different tactical situations. They'd know their own strengths and weaknesses ("I have trained long and hard to be difficult to strike while I'm moving into position.") even if they didn't know the game mechanics ("I get a +4 to AC against AoO incurred from movement because I chose the Mobility feat.")

I don't think it's metagaming to work toward your character's strengths and use good sound strategy. He knows his own capabilities.

I've noticed before that posters tend to view provoking an AoO as "messing up" in combat. I prefer to think of them as taking a risk in order to achieve a greater reward. It's akin to a chess strategy that sacrifices one piece in order to neutralize your opponent's pieces. You haven't lost the game or screwed up because you lost a bishop in order to take a knight or a queen. The goal is not to end the game with all your pieces. It's to capture your opponent's king.

That said, I wouldn't let a player provoke an AoO as a free action, as a standard action, or even as a full round action. There are plenty of viable actions you could perform that provoke an AoO. Use one of them.

 

[the Jester]

I agree with the "take an action that provokes in order to provoke" camp.

 

[Nail]

You could even go Total Defense and THEN provoke the AoO.

...and then you can move 5 feet without taking a five-foot step. That would be a move action that provokes an AoO.

 

[Infiniti2000]

These are all logical and likely thoughts of a tactical fighter, without resorting to "I have a good AC and my opponent only gets one AoO per round."

But none of those suggestions are what the OP wants. He wants to cause his opponent to lose his AoO because he suspects that the opponent only gets one of them. He wants to do it as a free action so that he can retain the full attack option.

That said, I wouldn't let a player provoke an AoO as a free action, as a standard action, or even as a full round action. There are plenty of viable actions you could perform that provoke an AoO. Use one of them.

Okay, so why wouldn't you allow it as a free action? It's not good enough to just say use an action that exists because it doesn't fit what the OP wants. Why can't someone just "provoke an AoO" for the purposes of provoking an AoO?

Again, I say that the idea that some of the responders are proposing is not to allow this (i.e. provoke an AoO without an action), but to use some other method. Like a bluff check that takes a standard action. If you're fighting someone and suddenly that person throws his arms wide and says, "Hit me." Do you think there's no chance your opponent will understand your intent?

 

[Len]

It's not good enough to just say use an action that exists because it doesn't fit what the OP wants.

If he wants to provoke an AoO without using any of the existing rules for provoking AoOs, then he's asking in the wrong forum.