Attacks of Opportunity Provoking Attacks of Opportunity?

[slaughterj]

Sutek, while I understand your concern with a series of AoOs spiraling out of control, as others have noted, unless Combat Reflexes is present, it never will go very far - at most, the person making an AoO might themselves trigger an AoO. That doesn't make for too deep of a chain. Further, even if Combat Reflexes are present, it would only go as far as people are taking attacks that draw AoOs as their AoO attacks, i.e., even I try to trip, grapple, sunder, etc. someone running by me as an AoO and in turn draw an AoO, they likely will just take a swing back at me, and that's the end of it.

 

[Foxworthy]

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.

Actually the special property of AoO can force a concentration check for actions other than spell casting. Footnote number two under the chart says this...

Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 standard action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action).

An attack is an action that requires "no more than a full round action". Concentration checks are for more than just spell casting.

To Sutek...

Read my clip from the D&D FAQ it clarifies how the AoO rules work. It's on page 34 of the D&D FAQ updated 10/27/05 if you wish to download the file from WoTC themselves.

I'd appreciate you not calling us rules lawyers btw as our version of the rules is the one supported by the makers of the system.

 

[argo]

Actually the special property of AoO can force a concentration check for actions other than spell casting. Footnote number two under the chart says this...

Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 standard action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action).

An attack is an action that requires "no more than a full round action". Concentration checks are for more than just spell casting.

Two points.

One: it is still a case of damage provoking a concentration check, not a special property of the AoO. From the section quoted "damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack".

Second: That quote says that damage from an AoO/readied action can force a concentration check on actions that take less than a full round. It does not say that all actions that take no more than a full round require concentration (parse the sentence and you will see this is true). You are correct that more actions than just spellcasting require concentration, I never said otherwise. However not all actions require concentration and those that do usually say that they do. Standing up from prone is an example of an action that does not require concentration, so is a melee attack. In fact most common combat actions don't require concentration.

 

[Foxworthy]

snip

Good points. I know I read somewhere that goes withw hat I'm saying but it might have been an optional rule somewhere. I personally like the concentration check thing though so I'm going to keep that in my games.

Though i think I'm still right about the standing up from prone thing.

Concentrations says...

You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

Since standing up does provoke an AoO it could be ruled that you need to roll concentration to go through with it. Someone stabbing a grounded foe with a sword would make it hard to get up.

For example: Think of a movie where two people are fighting and one gets kcoked tot he ground. As the person tries to get up he gets kicked in the stomach and can't get up.

 

[Sutek]

Read my clip from the D&D FAQ it clarifies how the AoO rules work. It's on page 34 of the D&D FAQ updated 10/27/05 if you wish to download the file from WoTC themselves.

D&D is D&D, and Conan is Conan. Also, the SRD contradicts the response in the FAQ. Enough acronyms for ya? :shock:

I'd appreciate you not calling us rules lawyers btw as our version of the rules is the one supported by the makers of the system.[/quote]

I'm not calling anyone rules lawyers, but I am calling wringing out the rules to squeeze out optimal situations rules lawyering. If you just read "[...]An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack[...]", then I feel that stops this whole argument dead. It's pretty straight forward. Melee attack. Single. Combat reflexes allows for more. Melee attacks don't provoke. Simple.

Maybe not.

On Concentration checks: Any skill check can be an instance where a concentration check could be necessary. Say I'm trying to pick a lock and it's really loud. It may be distracting, so the GM says I need to make a Concentration check. It's able to be used unskilled for that very reason and why stuff like "vigorous motion" are modifiers for it.

Plus, it says so in the AE rule book in the Special section of the skill. 8)

 

[Foxworthy]

Read my clip from the D&D FAQ it clarifies how the AoO rules work. It's on page 34 of the D&D FAQ updated 10/27/05 if you wish to download the file from WoTC themselves.

D&D is D&D, and Conan is Conan. Also, the SRD contradicts the response in the FAQ. Enough acronyms for ya? :shock:

I'd appreciate you not calling us rules lawyers btw as our version of the rules is the one supported by the makers of the system.

I'm not calling anyone rules lawyers, but I am calling wringing out the rules to squeeze out optimal situations rules lawyering. If you just read "[...]An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack[...]", then I feel that stops this whole argument dead. It's pretty straight forward. Melee attack. Single. Combat reflexes allows for more. Melee attacks don't provoke. Simple.

Maybe not.

On Concentration checks: Any skill check can be an instance where a concentration check could be necessary. Say I'm trying to pick a lock and it's really loud. It may be distracting, so the GM says I need to make a Concentration check. It's able to be used unskilled for that very reason and why stuff like "vigorous motion" are modifiers for it.

Plus, it says so in the AE rule book in the Special section of the skill. 8)[/quote]

Do you know the definition of a melee attack in a d20 system? A physical attack suitable for close combat. That's all a melee attack is. A trip is a melee attack. A grapple is a melee attack. An unarmed attack is defined as a melee attack made with no weapon in hand. Hence why the SRD doesn't invalidate the FAQ.

The SRD is incomplete in a few things, one of which is a glossary. The other is things like character creation and experience points. You're reading the melee attack as only and armed attack is wrong.

I'm not trying to squeeze anything out of the system. I'm just playing by the rules as written, unless the rules don't fir my game which does happen. This is not one of those times.

 

[Sutek]

page 156, second collumn

"Melee Attacks
With a melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. [...] Some melee weapons have reach..."

Unarmed attacks are different. They are not melee attacks, as melee attacks do not have any of the caveats and special rules that unarmed attacks do.

Both are standard actions, but that makes no difference.

You are allowed a melee attack at your normal attack bonus, which os the real benefit of an AoO, but not a ranged or unarmed attack by the RAW.

Sorry man. I'm obviously coming of as beligerent to you, and I don't want that to be the case. I just see trying to get more functionality out of a simple thing like an AoO as rule bending and lawyering. Not trying to be offensive and I'm sorry if you or anyone else has taken it that way.

 

[Foxworthy]

Ok, that still doesn't rule out using Sunder, Grapple, Disarm, or Trip as AoO's. If you read the desciption to each of them they say using a melee attck, or in the case of trip a melee touch attack.

As such since Sunder is a melee attack it can be used as an AoO, Sunder also provokes a AoO.

And yes you normally can't make a AoO with an unarmed strike as it doesn't threaten a opponent. Unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike cause if you have that feat you are considered armed.

You're using melee attack as only a normal attack with a weapon. You seem to only be ready one section of the book with out weighing in everything. Each description in the book isn't sealed in a vacuum, I know I'm coming off as an ass but I'd like the people reading the thread that might be new to the system to know how things work.

So to make things a bit simpler for the people that have to read my slightly disjointed posts...

An Attack of Oppurtunity is a melee attack. As a melee attack it can be anything from a normal weapon strike to a sunder. When using a melee attack like sunder an AoO can provoke it's own AoO. This works in a "Last In, First Out" system. If the results of one of the last in AoO prevents an earlier AoO from taking place than that action is lost.

I think that sums it up well, hopefully :-(

 

[argo]

Concentrations says...

You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

Since standing up does provoke an AoO it could be ruled that you need to roll concentration to go through with it. Someone stabbing a grounded foe with a sword would make it hard to get up.

Well, you are still using backwards logic. Just because actions that don't provoke AoO's dont usually require concentration does not mean that actions that do provoke AoO's do require concentration. The two are not equivalent statements.

I will also point out that if you rule that standing up requires concentration then you open yourself up to the "trip him once then keep him beat down with AoO's the rest of the combat." Which, in the opinion of nearly everyone I know is busted.

Meh, I think we've prety much covered all the ground here.

Oh, and FWIW I also rule that AoO's use a "Last In, First Out" qeue.

Later.

 

[Foxworthy]

I will also point out that if you rule that standing up requires concentration then you open yourself up to the "trip him once then keep him beat down with AoO's the rest of the combat." Which, in the opinion of nearly everyone I know is busted.

Of course I've seen many real life fights end up that way.

Of course the simple answer to prevent the AoO from getting up would to be to withdraw from combat. The first move action would be to crawl 5 feet and the second would be to get up. Though that maybe breaking the rules a bit.

I don't think it's as cut an dry as you do. I think thier is a lot of room in the rules to support the concentration check, even if it is backwards logic. I think the concentration check makes sense as I've seen quit e a few people in real life try to get up only to be kicked and prevented from getting up.

Of course being that this is a game real life isn't always best for the game.

 

[jadrax]

I know I'm coming off as an ass but I'd like the people reading the thread that might be new to the system to know how things work.

You really arn't, and your being very helpfull to boot.

 

[Sutek]

Ok, that still doesn't rule out using Sunder, Grapple, Disarm, or Trip as AoO's. If you read the desciption to each of them they say using a melee attck, or in the case of trip a melee touch attack.

As such since Sunder is a melee attack it can be used as an AoO, Sunder also provokes a AoO.

Actually, Sunder, and all the others you listed, are not melee attacks. They can be used with a melee attack, but that's not what AoO says to do. It says to make a melee attack at your normal attack bonus, but Sunder, for example, calls for a roll-off.

I strongly believe that AoOs are meant to be an opportunity jab, and nothing more. It's not a retaliatory chance to solve all of you problems by suddenly deciding to break someone's weapon as they run past you. It's meant to illustrate an opportunity to hit them with a weapon because they left them selves in a more vulnerable position. Stacking special attack options onto a simple AoO just over complicates the situation and adds more die rolls to a simple combat system that was aimed at reducing die rolls.

I'll stick with the KISS principle here. You folks that disagree can feel free to overcomplicate things as you see fit.
:wink:

 

[Foxworthy]

Actually, Sunder, and all the others you listed, are not melee attacks. They can be used with a melee attack, but that's not what AoO says to do. It says to make a melee attack at your normal attack bonus, but Sunder, for example, calls for a roll-off.

Actually the wordage is "as a melee attack" in the case of disarm does that means disarm is ok cause it's says a melee attack? According tot he way you work even if you it with an AoO you cna't do dmagae cause the melee attack section and the AoO doesn't say to roll damage dice.

I really don't see who you can't accept it. The people who made D&D which is the system that Conan is based upon say that it's the right way to do AoO. The rules nowhere say that Sunder isn't a melee attack. It goes so far as to say that you can use a melee attack as a sunder attempt. Nothing in AoO says that you can only use your single melee attack as a normal melee attack. It gives you a free melee attack to use as you will. Or not use if you wish.

It's clear though with all the information available that you can use Sunder/Disarm/Grapple as AoO and that they provoke AoO.

Though I don't know why I discuss this with you since I don't think you ever conceded to anyhting on these boards.

 

[Sutek]

Well, that's not true, I have. Just in this case, I feel it's a simpler resolution than allowing for Sunders and Disarms as AoOs. It's just an attack, in my opinion. An attack at normal, best melee bonus and nothing more. If you allow the special attack forms, then not only do you circumvent the phrase "normal attack bonus" in favor of roll-offs or other mechanics, but you also open the overly complicated stratified AoO instances that the D&D FAQ seems to support.

I think the AoO is mean tto be just a melee attack out of sequence. Nothing else. Even the normal attack roll is intended to be a representation of multiple swings and blows, evaluation them all as a whole over the course of a round of combat. It's not "die roll = swing" during a normal round of combat, so I don't think that's what AoOs are either, so I can't see them being just as complex, or even moreso, than a normal combat round.

On this point I will not concede, unless someone has reference other than the paragraphs we've continually been referencing in the rule book. Clearly, we've got a different opinion of things, and only something something outside the combat section explaining the AoO process in a different light is going to get me to change my opinion of how things should work.

 

[slaughterj]

A couple of random thoughts on the recent posts:

1. I have only played d20/DnD some, so I had not heard about an AoO being able to be anything other than a melee attack (i.e., attack for damage, as opposed to trip, sunder, disarm, etc.), but would be interested in hearing something that provides more concrete information that such can be done, e.g., a FAQ on this.

2. Again, I have only played d20/DnD some, so I had not heard about an AoO causing a concentration check (other than how any other damaging act would cause a spellcaster to do one) for someone trying to do a melee attack (or sunder, trip, etc.). That seems like a big deal that I would have heard more about if concentration checks occurred under such circumstances, and then people might be more inclined to buy up concentration for non-spellcasters as a result, but like I said, I hadn't heard anything of the sort. Therefore, I would be interested in hearing something that provides more concrete information that such occurs, e.g., a FAQ on this.

 

[Sutek]

Well, in both of those cases, I only have Conan AE here with me, so I can only give you instances of text from that and my interpretation of that text.

(1)
What is being said in regards to your first point is that Sunder and like Special Attacks state that a "melee attack" can be used to initiate them, and if that is done, then "the following special rules apply", listing the augmentations to the normal rules.

My interpretation is like yours: that an AoO is jsut a strike fgor damage that you get because your opponent is doing something nearby that allows you to take a jab at him if you want. It shouldn't allow Sunders or Trips or Grapples or anything else. These are things that require a modification to the Attack Action in my interpretation of the rules, D&D or Conan.

I've never hear dof anything in D&D to allow special attacks to be used as AoOs either, but I dont'have that book here with me to reference, so I can't verify anything.

(2)
The Concentration skill in Conan actually has a section at the end that explains how skill checks may be needed to facilitate casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or to use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. Now, that would imply to me that it can be used where skill would be used and provokes and attack of opportunity, not for general skill use (by the RAW anyway).

In other words, if a skill would draw and AoO, then that's when you'd use concentration to avoid drawing the AoO. It also says that this does not apply to other actions that would provoke an AoO.

Now what skill sprovoke AoOs is something I can't tell you. Concetration is a Free Action, so doesn't take any time, and all of the modifiers for it are to do with moving carts and vigorous motion and being pinned and so forth. Clearly, it would be hard to use certain skills while pinned. What "using a skill defensively" means, i can't say though.

I just GM it (in Conan or D&D) that any skill test that would ruin the results if one were interupted requires a Concentration check to complete if there are distractions. Simple as that. We use it a lot, and it makes it a good skill to have no matter what your class is.

 

[Foxworthy]

A couple of random thoughts on the recent posts:

1. I have only played d20/DnD some, so I had not heard about an AoO being able to be anything other than a melee attack (i.e., attack for damage, as opposed to trip, sunder, disarm, etc.), but would be interested in hearing something that provides more concrete information that such can be done, e.g., a FAQ on this.

Well you can check the D&D FAQ which I quoted earlier in the thread. They actually updated the FAQ last month and that bit is still in it.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

That's a link to the page that has the FAQ's on it. The glossary in the Player's Handbook describes a melee attack as a physical attack. Several of the special attack option like Disarm, Trip, and Sunder say that you can use a melee attack to do them. Nowhere does it say that you can't use the AoO's free melee attack that way.

Not all special attacks use melee attacks though, Charge, Feint and Bull Rush aren't counted as melee attacks.

Sutek's argument against it stems from these two sections of the rules...

Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

and

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).

His contention, please tell me if I have it wrong, is that since it says "single melee attack" and a "melee attack" is described as above that you can't use the special attacks because they use contested rolls.

My contention, and the one assumed by the D&D FAQ, is that the melee attack can be use like any other melee attack. Which means that you can use the special attack options that specify the use of a melee attack.

2. Again, I have only played d20/DnD some, so I had not heard about an AoO causing a concentration check (other than how any other damaging act would cause a spellcaster to do one) for someone trying to do a melee attack (or sunder, trip, etc.). That seems like a big deal that I would have heard more about if concentration checks occurred under such circumstances, and then people might be more inclined to buy up concentration for non-spellcasters as a result, but like I said, I hadn't heard anything of the sort. Therefore, I would be interested in hearing something that provides more concrete information that such occurs, e.g., a FAQ on this.

This is just my interperation of the Concentration rules footnote number 2. I've not found anything to support my interpetation other than what Argo called my backwards logic of reading footnote. As far as I know my views aren't part of the RAW on this situation.

 

[Foxworthy]

Here's another section of the FAQ I just noticed... I really wish I had noticed this earlier...

Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee
attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?

Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says). If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once, or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking and sundering.

Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in Combat in the Player’s Handbook. It needs one because unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat)
.
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack of opportunity).

Hope this helps as well.[/quote]

 

[Sutek]

His contention, please tell me if I have it wrong, is that since it says "single melee attack" and a "melee attack" is described as above that you can't use the special attacks because they use contested rolls.

Yes. But not based on the description of a melee attack so much as the fact that it states a single attack at normal attack bonus. In the special attack options like Sunder and soforth, they have modified ways of establishing success beyond just applying one's normal attack bonus.

 

[slaughterj]

My interpretation is like yours: that an AoO is jsut a strike fgor damage that you get because your opponent is doing something nearby that allows you to take a jab at him if you want. It shouldn't allow Sunders or Trips or Grapples or anything else.

That was just how I played it, because I hadn't played it much, and AoOs never even came up anyway. However, I do think that if your foe is doing something nearby, such as running by you or attempting certain other shenanigans, that it would be quite reasonable for you to try to trip them or grab them as they ran by.