Attacks of Opportunity Provoking Attacks of Opportunity?

[slaughterj]

Can an Attack of Opportunity provoking an Attacks of Opportunity?

I seem to recall some discussion of this years ago, but don't recall the result. Here's a sample situation.

Character A is flatfooted and unarmed, but has Combat Reflexes, meaning he can take an AoO while flatfooted. Character B armed by a sword, surprises A (thus why A is flatfooted) but elects to run by A to attack C instead. Therefore, B would trigger an AoO from A (who can do one due to Combat Reflexes), however, since A is unarmed and B is armed, if A attacks B, he would provoke an AoO against himself.

Thus, my question, can the unarmed AoO by A provoked by B's running past A itself provoke an AoO from B?

 

[Sutek]

No.

ACTIONS provoke. Basically, anything that is on that list in the book (p155AE) that says that it provokes, provokes.

Otherwise, suppose you had two unarmed opponents trading punches without Improved Unarmed Strike.

Infinite time would pass before the first round was over...or not, as the case may be. (lol)

 

[Strom]

No.

ACTIONS provoke. Basically, anything that is on that list in the book (p155AE) that says that it provokes, provokes.

Otherwise, suppose you had two unarmed opponents trading punches without Improved Unarmed Strike.

Infinite time would pass before the first round was over...or not, as the case may be. (lol)

The AoO table is also on the GM screen Sutek :lol: - (it's not completely worthless)

 

[slaughterj]

Otherwise, suppose you had two unarmed opponents trading punches without Improved Unarmed Strike.

An unarmed strike doesn't provoke an AoO from an unarmed foe though, so that's not a valid example of an issue with AoOs provoking AoOs.

 

[quigs]

Actually, according to the d20/D&D FAQ attacks of opportunity can provoke attacks of opportunity. Basically you just go back and forth until one combatant runs out of AoO and that is how you resolve it. So Combat Reflexes helps a lot in this case.

But in your example, A does not threaten while he's unarmed unless he has Improved Unarmed Strike. So B can run right by him without provoking the initial AoO.

DOH! Someone beat me to this

 

[Trodax]

Thus, my question, can the unarmed AoO by A provoked by B's running past A itself provoke an AoO from B?

Yes, I don't see why not. This would be the logical conclusion of the rules, and I don't see anything weird or unrealistic with such a ruling; you try to punch someone who brushes past you, but get your hand lopped off by his sword.

But in your example, A does not threaten while he's unarmed unless he has Improved Unarmed Strike. So B can run right by him without provoking the initial AoO.

You still threaten when unarmed, even if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, so you can try to punch someone who runs past you. However, if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike and you attack someone who is armed (or who has Improved Unarmed Strike), then you provoke an AoO when you trow the punch.

EDIT: Actually, quigs, you are probably right; I see now that the SRD says that you don't normally threaten when unarmed. Didn't know about that. That also makes a non-issue of slaughterj's example above; no initial AoO is provoked by B running past A. Sorry about that.

 

[are]

Otherwise, suppose you had two unarmed opponents trading punches without Improved Unarmed Strike.

Infinite time would pass before the first round was over...or not, as the case may be. (lol)

Except combatants do not have an unlimited number of Attacks of Opportunity per round.

 

[jadrax]

Attacks of oppertunity are actions like any other, and can prevoke an attack of oppertunity.

 

[ricardo440]

to take an AoO you must threaten your target.

I can't think of any situation where if you threaten your target you would provoke an AoO by attacking them.

 

[Sutek]

There's a chart that shows what provokes an atack of opportunity and what doesn't. It's on page 155 of the Conan RPG, Atlantean edition.

The weird or unrealistic thing that happens is that combat is conducted via rounds, which AoOs interupt. However, round based events are core to the combat system. If you get in a perpetual loop where, essentially "no time passes", then you've stepped outside the primary mechanic of the system: round based combat.

Furthermore, individuals with multiple AoOs due to Combat Reflexes can only take each of those against either different foes or different sources. This is why actions provoke AoOs and not anything else. Casting a spell, getting up from prone and picking up a dropped weapon would provoke 3 AoOs from a single individual with enough actions to do all that, but because they are different sources then Combat Reflexes can be used "against" them all. Otherwise, you can only apply all those AoOs you get from DEX bonus to separate combat opponents.

Actions provoke, and an Attack of Opportunity is not an action, it is an AoO; an interupt in the normal flow of combat.

 

[slaughterj]

Actually, according to the d20/D&D FAQ attacks of opportunity can provoke attacks of opportunity. Basically you just go back and forth until one combatant runs out of AoO and that is how you resolve it. So Combat Reflexes helps a lot in this case.

But in your example, A does not threaten while he's unarmed unless he has Improved Unarmed Strike. So B can run right by him without provoking the initial AoO.

DOH! Someone beat me to this

Thanks for the clarification on my example, as well as providing the answer I was looking for. Anybody got an example where it would arise? How about changing my example above, giving Character A improved unarmed strike (thus he is able to threaten) but then having Character A elect to do a grapple attack as his AoO on Character B (thus drawing an AoO himself, as he does not have improved grapple)?

 

[slaughterj]

There's a chart that shows what provokes an atack of opportunity and what doesn't. It's on page 155 of the Conan RPG, Atlantean edition.

The weird or unrealistic thing that happens is that combat is conducted via rounds, which AoOs interupt. However, round based events are core to the combat system. If you get in a perpetual loop where, essentially "no time passes", then you've stepped outside the primary mechanic of the system: round based combat.

Furthermore, individuals with multiple AoOs due to Combat Reflexes can only take each of those against either different foes or different sources. This is why actions provoke AoOs and not anything else. Casting a spell, getting up from prone and picking up a dropped weapon would provoke 3 AoOs from a single individual with enough actions to do all that, but because they are different sources then Combat Reflexes can be used "against" them all. Otherwise, you can only apply all those AoOs you get from DEX bonus to separate combat opponents.

Actions provoke, and an Attack of Opportunity is not an action, it is an AoO; an interupt in the normal flow of combat.

Sutek, that all sounds well and good, but is it just some interpretation you are putting to the material, or do you have a reference that says AoOs are limited to actions versus other AoOs? Apparently quigs says the d20 SRD says AoOs can draw AoOs, so what you are saying appears questionable. Further, how is an action of my taking a swing at you different than an AoO of my taking a swing at you? If one draws an AoO, then without a meaningful distinction AS WRITTEN IN THE RULES, then it would seem the other draws an AoO as well.

 

[Foxworthy]

Here's a quote from the D&D FAQ

Is it possible for an attack of opportunity to provoke an attack of opportunity? For example, a fighter attempts to trip a cleric. The cleric chooses to make a sunder attack against the fighter’s weapon as his attack of opportunity. Does the sunder attack then provoke an attack ofopportunity from the fighter?

Yes. An attack of opportunity is adjudicated just like any other attack, and it is subject to the same rules (including provoking additional attacks of opportunity). This can lead to odd situations where as the reason for the original action no longer exists. If this starts to confuse you, just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every
maneuver. Even the “sequential” nature of D&D combat—I make my attacks, then you make your attacks, then I make my attacks, and so forth—is an artificial creation used to keep combat moving quickly.

Using the example you provide, the fighter is indeed allowed to make an attack of opportunity against the cleric. (This attack could, in turn, provoke yet another attack of opportunity from the cleric, but the cleric could make such an attack only if he were allowed more than one attack of opportunity in a single round.)

These attacks are performed in a “Last In, First Out” sequence. The last attack of opportunity declared is the first one resolved, with the remaining attacks resolved in reverse order of their declaration, assuming the character can still make the attack. If the fighter drops the cleric with his attack of opportunity, the rest of the attacks in the sequence—including
the cleric’s attack of opportunity and the fighter’s original trip attack—do not occur. The actions are still “spent,” however— the fighter doesn’t get to use that original attack on some other target (although if he has other attacks remaining he may take them as normal).

Hope that helps.

 

[Sutek]

I'd never rule that way. It's not supported in the RAW.

Page 153, Conan AE:

Making an Attack of Opportunity
Combat Reflexes and Additional attacks of Opportunity
second sentance:
"This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity, since each one represents a different opportunity."

So, an opponent would have to take two different actions that provoke AoOs.

I guess the I see with allowing AoOs to provoke is the rediculous series of one-ups that can occur.

"I trip him."
"Well, then I punch him."
"In that case, I grab him!"
"Well, if that's the case, I shoot him!!"
"Nuh uh! I cast a spell on him!!"

<sigh>

It's all in one round, and that contravenes the entire purpose of rolling initiative and going round by round in order to resolve combats.

Yes, the explanation cited above wants to allow for it, but then how do you answer the question, "Can do a full attack then as my Attack of Opportunity?" Well, I'd have to say no, because that constitutes a Full-round action. Then how do we rationalize that someone can Sunder light a torch, stand from prone, make an unarmed attack...all in less than a round?

If you enjoy playing that way, more power to you. I think its overcomplicated and rules lawyerish (my opinion - no throwing things at my head), and I think the answer above is given without taking into account all the parameters and ramifications of AoOs as a game mechanic.

:?

 

[quigs]

"I trip him."
"Well, then I punch him."
"In that case, I grab him!"
"Well, if that's the case, I shoot him!!"
"Nuh uh! I cast a spell on him!!"

This could only happen if both players had Combat Reflexes though. If you provoke more than one AoO and your opponent only has one, then it runs out then and there.

PC tries to trips NPC
NPC tries to grapple PC for his AoO
PC tries to trip NPC for his AoO
- If neither has Combat Reflexes then it ends it right there. The PC gets to do his AoO first, then the NPC, then the PC gets to finish his action if he's still able.

If you add Combat Reflexes to the mix, then that just increases the number of steps, which can get a little silly, but I have NEVER seen this come up in one of our sessions yet.

 

[Foxworthy]

Also remember that if you get hit by an AoO then you need to make a concentration check to not lose the action.

For example let's go with two people who have Combat Reflexes and a 18 dex. A and B. B is flat footed as A is the first to act in the round.

A: I'm going to move past A to attack C.

B: Since I have Combat Reflexes I'm going to trip with my staff to prevent you from reaching C.

Action done. Either A gets tripped or not. Trip only provokes an AoO when done with an unarmed attack. Since unarmed attacks don't threaten they can't be used for an AoO.

Now for a more complicated example. Same people as above cept let's add Improved Unarmed strike. A starts prone in his square. A goes first.

A: I stand up.

B: I use my AoO to grapple him.

A: I grapple you from the ground then as my AoO.

B: Fine then I'm going to use an unarmed strike on you.

Now what will happen here is that B attacks the prone A. If he hits then A needs to make a concetration check DC 10+ damage dealt or lose his action. If he fails then the rest doesn't apply. If he succeds then A makes his grapple check. If he succeds then B is grappled and all other actions in the round are done as the grapple invalidates the other AoO. The question would be does it invalidate the standing from prone which i would say no but that could vary.

If A misses on his grapple then B make shis grapple check and if he succeds he has A grappled on the ground prone. If he misses then A gets up.

It's really hard to find a chain where AoO can go back and forth for a while. Only Sunder and Grapple really would happen and it would go back and forth till one person ran out of AoO. The grapple chain would nd as soon as one person grappled his opponent but the sunder could go on for a while.

But really it's not that hard and I've yet to see people respond to an AoO with an action that provokes and AoO.

Also note that you cna't casta spella s an AoO since it's not an attack option.

 

[Sutek]

If one character (A)were to state that, on a given round of combat, he was going to trip, cast and grapple, then that would be three actions that provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and therefore allow an opponent (B)to utilize his Combat Reflexes to make 3 AoOs. Since these are all at his normal attack bonus, it make it better than actually getting multiple atacks (which reduce in bonus the more attacks you make during a round, which also make it a silly notion).

In other words, A provokes 3 AoOs due to his three actions which provoke. B has combat reflexes and can take advantage of A's overzealousness and rightly clobberhim for it, unless he misses every time and A gets to actually do all of that.

If the round is a series of "one-ups" where each party involved gets many actions within the span of a single round, then ther was no point in ever rolling initiative, keeping track of Standard Actions versus Full Round Actions and the normal flow of the combat rules in general. It rabpidly gets very absurd.

In your example, PC tries to trip NPC, then NPC gets and AoO. One opportunity has been presented to him, and he gets a single attack per opportunity. "Attack" is a defined in this instance as using your normal attack bonus regardless of whether you attacked already in the combat which further precludes "non-attack" type simulated actios (eg. those with STR roll-offs like trip and grapple, for example).

The purpose of Combat Reflexes is to deter oponents who move through multiple adjacent spaces, to initiate a grapple, for instance. In that case, 2 AoOs would be provoked. CR is further inteded to help against multiple opponents. The more AoOs you get allows jabs at more opponents who are adjacent to you. It in no way whatsoever allows for infinite action-taking to occur. It only states that you can make an attack at your normal attack bonus for each opportunity whicih provokes such an opportunity.

You guys are free to play how you like. :roll:

 

[quigs]

I was merely stating that according to the d20 SRD, AoO can provoke further AoO and how to adjucate them, which I think was what the original poster was asking.

Your usage of Combat Reflexes is your own of course, but this thread may end up off topic if we begin going into house rules and personal interpretations of the SRD rules.

And yes, it is silly to have it work this way but then again, this is a game and shouldn't be confused with actual logic or physics

 

[Sutek]

I'm not interpreting anything. It says exactly what I've posted above in the Conan AE rule book. What is being suggested sounds like rules lawyering to me; trying to squeeze every ounce of game out of the game and nit-picking rules to death in order to min-max and monty hall.

And here's what the SRD actually says (underlining by me):

Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.

An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). 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. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

 

[argo]

Also remember that if you get hit by an AoO then you need to make a concentration check to not lose the action.

Incorrect. You only need to make a concentration check to perform an action if that action requires concentration. By default most actions do not require concentration, those that do state that they require concentration. For example: spellcasting requires concentration, standing up from prone does not.

Moreover, note that the need to make a concentration check is not a special property of the AoO, but rather is a result of taking damage while attempting an action that requires concentration. You can force a spellcaster to make a concentration check with an AoO, a readied action or with continuous damage (for example, he is on fire). All cause damage durring the casting action. The source of the damage is not important, just that he took damage.

Hope that helps.