Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Amaranth 11-17-07, 04:31 PM	So what happens in this scenario: Player tries to retreat from a monster but provokes an AoO. The monster elects to use his AoO to try to start a grapple. Does the player get an AoO against the monster? If so, what order are the attacks of opportunity resolved? Thanks!
Verenal 11-17-07, 04:45 PM	In this case, the player takes an AoO against the monster, who provoked an AoO with grappling (assuming said monster provokes attacks of opportunity when starting a grapple.). After this AoO is resolved, the monster's AoO is resolved normally.
Greco 11-17-07, 05:41 PM	So what happens in this scenario: Player tries to retreat from a monster but provokes an AoO. The monster elects to use his AoO to try to start a grapple. Does the player get an AoO against the monster? If so, what order are the attacks of opportunity resolved? Thanks! No. An individual making the AoO never provokes an AoO because it is not a normal action or any kind of action.
Amaril 11-17-07, 05:59 PM	No. An individual making the AoO never provokes an AoO because it is not a normal action or any kind of action. Not true. An individual making an opportunity attack can provoke an opportunity attack in turn. The limitation on recursive AoO is set by the limit of the number of AoO's a can make in a single round, a character being flat-footed, or whether or not the character has combat reflexes.
dman11235 11-17-07, 06:06 PM	You had the combat reflexes one twice. The third limitation is that you can't take more than one AoO for each opportunity (i.e., movement through more than one square).
Amaril 11-17-07, 06:09 PM	Point still stands. AoOs can be recursive.
runestar 11-17-07, 08:02 PM	Correct. For example, imagine 2 players with the combat reflexes feat - A tries to disarm B, and both lack the improved disarm feat. A provokes an AoO, which B elects to use to disarm. B then provokes an AoO of his own, and if A uses this AoO to make another disarm attempt, A will provoke yet another AoO, which B uses to make another disarm, and the cycle goes on until one side runs out of AoOs (or this can carry on to infinity if both have the improved combat reflexes epic feat which gives you unlimited AoOs...) :D
StevenO 11-17-07, 11:19 PM	AoO can provoke their own AoO which can continue until one side runs out of opportunities. After the AoO triggering actions are finished you can start reloving them beginning with the last one triggered.
CrimsonDeath 11-17-07, 11:29 PM	Or one guy can just choose not to take his AOO, in case he thinks he might want to use an AOO later. Also note that the scenario runestar described could wind up being funny, because disarms can be made unarmed, and if you make a disarm attempt unarmed, you wind up armed with the item. So, if on the last attempt, B successfully disarms A, then A still gets his (unarmed) disarm attempt against be. In the most hilarious outcome possible, the rest of the chain resolves by the two characters repeatedly swiping the remaining weapon from each other.
runestar 11-18-07, 01:56 AM	Or one guy can just choose not to take his AOO, in case he thinks he might want to use an AOO later. I can imagine a typical scenario with the DM. Me: You stop taking your AoO. DM: No, you stop. Me: No, you stop... DM: No, you...:P
protor 11-27-07, 12:20 AM	We had a situation like this come up once... A character had Karmic Strike, allowing him to make an AoO on someone who hits him. But he was unarmed at the time (got disarmed) so he made his AoO with a punch, provoking an AoO, which hit, giving him an AoO, which provoked an AoO... btw both chars had Combat reflexes and dex of 20+
mvincent 11-27-07, 02:41 PM	An individual making the AoO never provokes an AoOFrom the 3.5 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 of opportunity 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)."
Taren 11-27-07, 03:10 PM	We had a situation like this come up once... A character had Karmic Strike, allowing him to make an AoO on someone who hits him. But he was unarmed at the time (got disarmed) so he made his AoO with a punch, provoking an AoO, which hit, giving him an AoO, which provoked an AoO... btw both chars had Combat reflexes and dex of 20+ don't you have to be armed in order to take and attack of opportunity?
dman11235 11-27-07, 04:48 PM	You have to threaten with something, so yes.