What if Making an AoO When Threatened Provoked?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

So, to clarify, you are saying that if orc B does something that provokes, then fighter A does something to provoke, while making his melee attack (in some type of special attack), you are wanting to know what problems does this produce?

I suppose that dealing with this situation could be considered tedious, but it is part of the game.

Specifically, what action would you suggest (tactically) that fighter A do to orc B that would provoke?

Aluvial

I'm specifically interested in attacks of opportunities provoked by movement.

We've recently added the complexity of the rules for facing to our 3.x game. I honestly didn't think adding such rules to the game would enhance the experience, but I was pleasantly surprised with how well they worked over about 30 hours of play with various types and sizes of opponents and terrain.

The question came up, though, about how much sense it would make for a combatant that is facing with one or more opponents suddenly making an AoO against someone that moved out of a threatened space in his rear or flank area. Even though the rules impose penalties to hit when attacking into flank or rear areas, it seemed to stretch believability that making an AoO into the flank or rear area while facing another combatant in the front wouldn't provoke an AoO from the opponent in the front.

To answer your question, suppose one of the orcs moved away (without withdrawing or taking a 5' step, for whatever reason). Then, the fighter has the option of making an AoO on that orc. If the fighter does make an AoO, the second orc could choose to make an AoO on the fighter.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

What would be the rationale for an Attack of Opportunity to be more likely to provoke than a regular attack made by the Fighter?

The best rationale that I have is that making an AoO is out of sync with your normal rythm as determined by your initiative. That combined with the idea that diverting your attention long enough to make an AoO while threatened seems like enough provoke an AoO from other combatants that threaten you.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Hrothgar Rannúlfr
How much would this hurt the game?

It would help the game by rewarding tactics and teamwork.

I agree. That's the main benefit that I see in allowing an AoO to provoke an AoO. It makes being outnumbered more dangerous.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Sepulchrave II
What would be the rationale for an Attack of Opportunity to be more likely to provoke than a regular attack made by the Fighter?

It would help the game by rewarding tactics and teamwork.To take the opportunity, the opportunist exposes himself to others.

Agreed. That's where I was going with the idea that an AoO is outside the normal rhythm for a combatant (above).

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

4 words: a lot of management.
You'll have to consider each combatant's position in relation to everyone else's. All the time.
I don't think you'd wanna go there.

I can see that, nonsi256. But, we're already into combat facing and heavy battlemat use with miniatures, so consideration of each combatant's position is already being done. And, it's quite fun.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Well, it would pretty much lessen the likelihood of your party having to worry about AoOs, because the people most likely to have strength in numbers is the party, not the bad guys. If you replace A with a bad guy, B with a spellcaster, and C with a a fighter w/ Improved Critical and a good weapon and what not, do you really want A to get hit by the fighter if he tries to stop the spellcaster?

I agree. It does lessen the liklihood of an AoO, especially in situations where the party outnumbers their opponent(s). To counter that, I'd be sure to use the rules for Combat Reactions from Trailblazer (giving other options that you can do that use up your AoO for the round that wouldn't provoke an AoO (Aiding Attack/Defense, dodging, blocking, etc...). Just adding these options reduces the liklihood of someone making an AoO even if an AoO doesn't provoke an AoO.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

You seriously want to make it HARDER to AoO?

Me? No. I was perfectly fine with the rules for AoO's that are in the core rules. However, my players really seem to enjoy the tactical complexity of combat facing and using combat facing exposes some of the problems with the idea of making an AoO into flank or rear areas.

Now, this isn't a problem in the core rules. That's because combatants are assumed to be whirling about in all directions as necessary. But, with combat facing, whirling about in all directions isn't as possible. Or, at least, doesn't seem as possible.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I've often wondered about this. Say the enemy's trying to flee and you use your AoO to trip or grapple without the Improved feat, so as to prevent him from getting away. I think by RAW you would then provoke an AoO from the target.

That's how I interpret it, SotS.

It's a little ugly and if both sides are determined to make it silly (both have combat reflexes, no improved maneuver feats, and purposely keep choosing to use their AoOs for them anyway), it could create not an infinite loop but a fairly large one. However, if you don't impose the AoO for using a maneuver on an AoO, that's really unbalanced as now those actions are BETTER out of turn on attacks that expend no action whatsoever than they are on your actual turn. If the silliness bothered me enough, I'd sooner disallow maneuvers that would provoke an AoO for use on an AoO rather than give the maneuver user a free pass.

And, I think that'd be a good solution, too.

I think that's why a normal melee attack used as an AoO doesn't provoke an AoO by the core rules. It's simple and doesn't create complex loops and/or AoO chains. Just as simple as removing the complexities of combat facing from the core rules.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Let me see if I get your meaning - you want to make it so taking an Attack of Opportunity will also provoke an Attack of Opportunity from enemies that threaten the original opportunist?

Yes.

Just describing it is a bit confusing (so I may have it wrong) so I'd say "dont do it". I agree with others that it could get pretty out of hand...especially once you factor in reach and combat reflexes. AoOs confuse enough people.

AoOs do confuse people. It took me a little while to really understand them, and I'm sure that I'm still confused, at times.

You mention tripping and bull rushing. They do in fact provoke AoOs from the target, however only Bull Rush will provoke from other adjacent enemies based on your movement. Trip shouldn't provoke from anyone but your target. But again, I may have your meaning incorrect.

I'm not an expert on bullrushing and tripping. Neither have come up much in our games. I once had a couple of goblins attempt a bullrush for comic effect, but it hasn't seriously been attempted. My players almost always opt for damage dealing over infulencing battlefield position.

Here's my interpretation of the manuevers from the core rules.
Bullrush does, indeed, provoke from every threatening enemy (unless you have Improved Bullrush or the equivalent, which disallows the AoO from the defender).

Charge would provoke from any enemies that threatened any squares you'd leave during your charge.

Disarm only provokes from the defender (unless you have Improved Disarm).

Feint doesn't provoke an AoO.

Grapple confuses me, but it seems like it provokes an AoO from the defender (unless you have improved grapple) and then if successful, it provoks AoOs from threatening opponents when you move into the defender's space (whether or not you have Improved Grapple), but not the defender.

Overrun? Provokes from the defender. Should probably provoke from other threateners if you leave a threatened square, too.

Sunder? Only from the defender (unless you have improved Sunder).

Trip? Only from the defender (unless you have improved trip).

---- ---- ----

Granted, if every one of these potential AoO's also provoked an AoO, then that'd reduce the chance of any of these ever happening even further than the RAW rules concerning these manuevers already do (in my game, at least).

 

[CuRoi]

No, I think you got it. My meaning was two people ending up in a big chain of AoOs by using combat maneuvers against each other without the feats to remove the AoO from using them.

I suppose some wierd loop could be established I if the opponents kept provoking each other, had combat reflexes...might make sense as that is how untrained people might fight : )

However, an AoO interrupts the flow of the round and is suppsoed to be resolved immediately, so it could be argued that you have to resolve one before you declare any others. This could be interpreted to mean one combatant is tripped before you need to worry about resolving any more AoOs between the two.

For the proposed rule change from the OP though, consider this example for what I mean by "reach" issues:

Let's say Giant A is standing across from players B, C, and D. Orc O decides to "run the Gauntlet" in the five foot space between the groups...

A
O---->
B C D

By the RAW, B,C, and D get to smack the orc in the head as he runs by. By the proposed rules, as long as the giant A has Combat Reflexes, he can smack B,C, and D in the head as they decide to smack the running orc. Its up to you whether thats a problem or not in your game. However, creatures (or players) with reach could create some huge movement corridors where allies could maneuver with some safety.

--A should be directly across form C in the above...not formatting it right