Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ozzymandias 09-03-04, 04:53 PM	Exactly what can you do with an attack of opportunity? I've checked the rules, and the way I see it, you can attack, and that's it. However, I've seen examples both online and in published material that suggest that a character can use other special attacks (like trip, disarm, sunder, etc) as attacks of opportunity. Is this true or not? If it is, isn't it a little too powerful?
primemover003 09-03-04, 05:13 PM	You can use any of the attack options in the PHB. You can disarm, trip, sunder, grapple, etc.. It's not overpowered at all... most of the options other than a straight attack provoke AoO's too.
Hypersmurf 09-03-04, 09:07 PM	Exactly what can you do with an attack of opportunity? You're looking for footnote 7 to the Table of Action Types, PHB p141. You'll see that Trip, Grapple, and Disarm have this footnote, and thus can be used for an AoO. You'll also see that Sunder doesn't have this footnote. -Hyp.
Ozzymandias 09-09-04, 12:57 PM	Thank you for the reference. That part of it now makes sense. What doesn't is the following: Improved Trip provides you with a free attack whenever you successfully trip someone. Does that mean that, as an attack of opportunity, I can trip someone AND get a free attack on them? What if I trip someone (as an AoO), get a free attack and 'drop' them (less than 0hp), can I then use Cleave? If I Cleave, and drop them, can I use Great Cleave? I is very confuzuled...
tarkin 09-09-04, 01:16 PM	Yes when you do an AoO, you can trip and with Improved Trip you could then take an attack. Officially you are also allowed to Cleave while doing an AoO. But I (and other people) consider this to be abusive. Consider the following: Person has: Combat Reflexes High dexterity (24+) Spiked Chain Great Cleave. GOes into a bar, starts a bar fight. As the people run around, doing brawl/bar fight stuff, he get's AoO.s With each AoO he kills one of the commoners in the building. An uses the Cleave to attack his intended victim. At the end of the first round, he could get 7+ attacks against his victim, possibly before the victim has even taken a single action. Cleave lets you redirect an attack from one target to another target. As such, when the first attack has limitations (AoO can only be taken against the person that initiated the AoO), Cleave can remove those limitations. For this reason, it is abusive. Yes you can outlaw just the clearly abusive things. Or if your DM has a brain you can realize that by its nature cleave on an AoO is always abusive unless the other attack is also against someone that has triggered an AoO.
Zherog 09-09-04, 01:34 PM	As Tarkin said, by the Rules As Written, you can cleave anybody off a successful Attack of Opportunity. I understand the issue he (and others) have with it. I'm not yet decided on whether or not it's abusive. Mostly because such an issue has never come up in my games.
kjenks 09-09-04, 02:14 PM	Page 22 of the Main FAQ also allows you to sunder as an AoO.
Tony Vargas 09-09-04, 03:42 PM	Cleave lets you redirect an attack from one target to another target. As such, when the first attack has limitations (AoO can only be taken against the person that initiated the AoO), Cleave can remove those limitations. For this reason, it is abusive. Or if your DM has a brain you can realize that by its nature cleave on an AoO is always abusive unless the other attack is also against someone that has triggered an AoO. While that is certainly abusive, I don't see why the rules need to be read that way. Cleave doesn't come right out and say that the bonus attack does or doesn't have the same limitations in target choice as the one that triggered it. It would be just as reasonable to assume the latter as the former. And, since one assumption is not only abusive, but encourages abuse in a stupidly counter-intuitive way (by manufacturing additional foes - e.g. "bag o' rats" et.al.), it's not a difficult choice...
Thorak 09-09-04, 04:48 PM	You're looking for footnote 7 to the Table of Action Types, PHB p141. You'll see that Trip, Grapple, and Disarm have this footnote, and thus can be used for an AoO. You'll also see that Sunder doesn't have this footnote. -Hyp. A little later, you'll also see that Sunder specifically says you "use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon" to perform the Sunder. If the AoO is with an appropriate weapon, therefore, you can use the melee attack the AoO is to make a Sunder attempt. Yes, the table disagrees. But in cases where tables disagree with text, text is the one that wins.
Hypersmurf 09-09-04, 05:03 PM	A little later, you'll also see that Sunder specifically says you "use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon" to perform the Sunder. Certainly. But that would only be applicable if you were taking the Sunder action - which is clearly a standard action. There's nothing to suggest that you can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to damage an opponent's weapon or shield unless you are taking the Sunder action. So which an AoO is indeed a melee attack, it is not taken as part of the Sunder action, and is thus not a melee attack that is valid for damaging an opponent's weapon or shield. -Hyp.
Thorak 09-09-04, 06:55 PM	How is it 'clearly' a standard action? Nothing in the Sunder text says or implies it. The only thing which does is the table, which as I've pointed out is erroneous in contradicting the Sunder text. For that matter, the 3.5 FAQ has this to say; 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). Note the bit right after the question that I've helpfully italicized. It's fairly clear what the official version is. If you're going to houserule, that's fine, but it's not official.
Hypersmurf 09-09-04, 07:34 PM	How is it 'clearly' a standard action? Nothing in the Sunder text says or implies it. The only thing which does is the table... Exactly. Clearly. ... which as I've pointed out is erroneous in contradicting the Sunder text. There's no contradiction. For that matter, the 3.5 FAQ has this to say; Yes, yes. And Weapon Finesse requires you to take a penalty to your attack rolls to increase your AC. -Hyp.
Tony Vargas 09-09-04, 07:50 PM	Before anyone gets too heated, it's woth noting that Hyp's sole and only point, here, is that WotC placed the admission that they flubbed the table entry for Sunder in the FAQ, instead of the Erratta.... ...unless that matters to you, too, don't bother arguing the point.
Hypersmurf 09-09-04, 07:59 PM	Before anyone gets too heated, it's woth noting that Hyp's sole and only point, here, is that WotC placed the admission that they flubbed the table entry for Sunder in the FAQ, instead of the Erratta.... Not really. The FAQ doesn't consider the table wrong, you see. It says that the reason Sunder is listed is a standard action is because it provokes an AoO. But notice that Disarm, Grapple, and Trip - all of which bear footnote 7 and are listed as Action Type Varies - also provoke AoOs. Yet they aren't listed as Standard actions. The FAQ answer is not saying "Oops - yes, that's wrong". It's saying "Here's what I think Sunder should do, and here's a flimsy excuse for why the table reads the way it does". If they'd said "The table is incorrect. Sunder should be 'Action Type Varies', not 'Standard', and should bear footnote 7", I'd be... happier. But they didn't. They said "It's standard because it provokes an AoO"... which gives me as much confidence in that answer as I have in the Weapon Finesse answer. -Hyp.
Tony Vargas 09-09-04, 08:10 PM	Bottom line, if it had been an Erratta entry that said (something like) "Change action for Sunder to 'varies' table such-and-such" we wouldn't be having this discussion... no?
Hypersmurf 09-09-04, 08:15 PM	Bottom line, if it had been an Erratta entry that said (something like) "Change action for Sunder to 'varies' table such-and-such" we wouldn't be having this discussion... no? Oh. Absolutely. Then the table would no longer say 'standard action', so there wouldn't be any reason to suggest that it is a standard action. -Hyp.
robitusinz 09-09-04, 08:51 PM	Exactly. Clearly. There's no contradiction. Yes, yes. And Weapon Finesse requires you to take a penalty to your attack rolls to increase your AC. -Hyp. Are you serious? 1 mistype, and you dismiss the entire 3.5 FAQ? BTW, it was stated earlier. Whenever there's a discrepancy between table and text, text wins. Sunder can be used as an AoO, and as part of a full attack.
Thorak 09-10-04, 10:47 AM	Hypersmurf; I know full well why you're being disagreeable, and I understand. I wasn't trying to get overly heated in my original post, but while I do see your point, I think it's clear what the official WotC position is intended to be, even if they're being a little wishy-washy about it. Especially since there's nothing besides the table which makes Sunder any different, really, from any of the other special attack variants; it would be inconsistent to require Sunder to be a standard action when, say, Disarm was useable as a melee attack. Is it really that much harder to hit someone's weapon than to disarm it?