AoO and Readied Actions (Rules Question) [Archive] - Wizards Community

AoO and Readied Actions (Rules Question) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
D'Nabre
06-08-05, 01:42 PM If I ready an action to attack somebody when they do an action which provokes an AoO, do I get both my readied attack and the AoO?

For example, I'm standing next to spell caster. I ready an action to attack him when he casts a spell. He starts casting, my readied action goes off and he provokes an AoO. Do I get two attacks?

My table ruling for this has been, only one attack. Just because you're ready for them to provoke the AoO you shouldn't get an extra attack in my opinion. I'm looking for rules to cover it though. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
Tony Vargas
06-08-05, 02:15 PM If I ready an action to attack somebody when they do an action which provokes an AoO, do I get both my readied attack and the AoO?
I'd think so. An AoO and a Readied attack both interrupt, and are resolved before, the triggering action. If you readied an action vs an AoO-provoking action, and someone else was threatening the triggering character, that third individual should certainly get thier AoO, as well as you getting your ready, for instance. All the conditions for an AoO are in place, and the ready has been triggered, so, to be fair to the readying/threatening character, both should happen.

You could visualize the two attack & damage rolls as representing a single strike (particularly deadly, because the viticm is open, and you were specifically prepared for that opening).

As a DM, it might not be unreasonable to resolve the Ready and AoO sepparately (I'd presume the Ready, first, but you could go either way), and to disallow the latter, if the former ends the provoking action.

Note that a player could specify his ready condition to go off, iff the AoO doesn't succeed. Instead of Readying vs a cast spell, it could be Readying vs a cast spell that isn't stopped by an AoO (which would go off if the caster cast defensively, the AoO missed, or the caster made his concentration check after the AoO hit).
Zherog
06-08-05, 02:16 PM You would get both attacks.
D'Nabre
06-08-05, 02:26 PM As a DM, it might not be unreasonable to resolve the Ready and AoO sepparately (I'd presume the Ready, first, but you could go either way), and to disallow the latter, if the former ends the provoking action.

Well, casting a spell is just an example, I'm concerned with an AoO in this situation.

I'm pretty sure the rules say you get both attacks, it just doesn't seem to make sense. "I'm going to stand ready and attack him when he lets his guard down. *hit*. Oh, he let his guard down, I get to attack him *hit again*".
Tony Vargas
06-08-05, 02:36 PM I'm pretty sure the rules say you get both attacks, it just doesn't seem to make sense. "I'm going to stand ready and attack him when he lets his guard down. *hit*. Oh, he let his guard down, I get to attack him *hit again*". A lot of things about the initiative system don't make sense if you take them too litterally. A caster can just 5' step back and cast a spell, while the warrior threatening him is 'forced to wait for his turn' to 5' step after him, for instance.

Like I said, you could visualize it as a single, exceptionally dangerous attack, modeled by a pair of attack rolls. Heck, you could think of itterative attacks that way. Hitting someone 5 times and killing him could be visualized as a single skillful thrust as well as a flurry of hacking and slashing, depending on the ..uh.. 'idiom' of the attacker.... ;)
D'Nabre
06-08-05, 02:45 PM Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position.
TheMagister
06-08-05, 03:11 PM Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position.

The situation you've outlined here doesn't seem to be a problem with the rules, it's maybe a problem with your combat style (don't be offended! I'm NOT trying to be offensive!).

If this situation crops up a lot in your games, then maybe you need to brush up on the combat rules in the PHB; many of the AoOs a character normally generates can be gotten around with clever use of feats or skills.

If this isn't the case, then your players are to be commended for thinking ahead and using strategy and battlefield placement to achieve an advantage.

It wouldn't be fair to ban/change the RAW just because one of your players is more rules savvy than you are. There's no shame in having more to your life than D&D and not being able to spend so much time finding neat little ways to make the rules work to your advantage.

With all respect,

TM
Tsuul
06-08-05, 03:16 PM The players may forfeit their turns completly; that should balance this out.

Consider the player who readies an action to attack a wizard(who is next to him) when the wizard casts a spell.
If the wizard decides to move 30' away before casting, then the player only gets an AoO for the movement and loses the readied action to attack.

Had the player readied a charge instead, the player would again lose that action if the wizard only took a 5' step back to cast.

Some DMs allow for a Sense Motive to help determine what kind of readied action the opponent is queued for.
Tony Vargas
06-08-05, 03:18 PM Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position. Sure, but consider if you have the NPC perform a different, non-provoking action. The PC has lost his readied action completely, and gets no AoO: he's completely wasted a round.
D'Nabre
06-08-05, 03:27 PM The situation you've outlined here doesn't seem to be a problem with the rules, it's maybe a problem with your combat style (don't be offended! I'm NOT trying to be offensive!).

If this situation crops up a lot in your games, then maybe you need to brush up on the combat rules in the PHB; many of the AoOs a character normally generates can be gotten around with clever use of feats or skills.

There's no way to avoid the AoO from leaving threatened squares short of tumbling, which not everybody can do.

If this isn't the case, then your players are to be commended for thinking ahead and using strategy and battlefield placement to achieve an advantage.

I'm constantly commending their tactics. They're much better than mine :D. This tactic just doesn't make sense in realism.

[QUOTE=TheMagister]
It wouldn't be fair to ban/change the RAW just because one of your players is more rules savvy than you are. There's no shame in having more to your life than D&D and not being able to spend so much time finding neat little ways to make the rules work to your advantage.

I'm aware of the rules for readied actions and AoO, but it's easy to overlook special exceptions, which is one of the reasons I'm asking about this.
When the rules don't make sense, needless violate realism, and adversely effective the game, it is reasonable to change them. In this case, it doesn't really adversely effect the game. Though it does limit NPC tactics, which consider the kind of tactics my players like to use, reduces the fun of combat. This also fails the test of the expected response if my NPCs start doing the same thing.

I'm thinking all in all, to just say you can't ready an action to trigger when someone invokes an AoO. Being capable to take an AoO means you've already readied yourself to attack when take that action. I think that's reasonable within the limits of what you can say will trigger a readied action.
D'Nabre
06-08-05, 03:30 PM The players may forfeit their turns completly; that should balance this out.

Consider the player who readies an action to attack a wizard(who is next to him) when the wizard casts a spell.
If the wizard decides to move 30' away before casting, then the player only gets an AoO for the movement and loses the readied action to attack.

Had the player readied a charge instead, the player would again lose that action if the wizard only took a 5' step back to cast.

Some DMs allow for a Sense Motive to help determine what kind of readied action the opponent is queued for.

Sense motive might for reasonable intelligent creatures.

In general though, the people they're fighting won't know what they've readied an action to do, and often won't even be able to tell they've readied an action.
TheMagister
06-08-05, 03:40 PM There's no way to avoid the AoO from leaving threatened squares short of tumbling, which not everybody can do.

All you have to do is withdraw. If you withdraw, the square that you start the movement from is not considered threatened. If you're dealing with a PC with reach, well, them's just the breaks; reach just allows more AoOs.

If you're able to withdraw through some allies, your pursuer will face them instead of you (they're effectively covering your retreat).

I'm aware of the rules for readied actions and AoO, but it's easy to overlook special exceptions, which is one of the reasons I'm asking about this.
When the rules don't make sense, needless violate realism, and adversely effective the game, it is reasonable to change them. In this case, it doesn't really adversely effect the game. Though it does limit NPC tactics, which consider the kind of tactics my players like to use, reduces the fun of combat. This also fails the test of the expected response if my NPCs start doing the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Your players are getting more attacks via smart maneuvering. What's not fun about that? Why can't NPCs use those same tactics? If they work, they're bound to be well-known.

I'm thinking all in all, to just say you can't ready an action to trigger when someone invokes an AoO. Being capable to take an AoO means you've already readied yourself to attack when take that action. I think that's reasonable within the limits of what you can say will trigger a readied action.

Being ready to take advantage of your opponent lowering his guard and readying an action to take place during a triggering action are two different things.

If they happen to be the SAME instance, both apply. It really shouldn't happen all that much.

TM
Tony Vargas
06-08-05, 03:51 PM Sense motive might for reasonable intelligent creatures.

In general though, the people they're fighting won't know what they've readied an action to do, and often won't even be able to tell they've readied an action. Still, avoiding AoO-provoking actions is a good idea, most of the time. So readying for an AoO provoking action strikes me as a little... optimistic.

With the caster example, for instance, casting defensively or stepping away would make more sense, and would negate the AoO (and in the latter case, possibly even the Ready).
FineasBoggs
06-08-05, 04:07 PM A lot of things about the initiative system don't make sense if you take them too litterally. A caster can just 5' step back and cast a spell, while the warrior threatening him is 'forced to wait for his turn' to 5' step after him, for instance.

Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him.
Merestil Haye
06-08-05, 04:30 PM Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him.You cannot take a 5' step when taking an AoO; it is not your turn. You can if you are taking a readied action, and did not move before readying the action.

The caster always has the option of casting defensively, which would also avoid AoO's and therefore readied actions contingent on him provoking AoOs - but not those readied actions that trigger on the caster casting a spell.
Tsuul
06-08-05, 04:37 PM Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him.
You cannot take a 5' step when taking an AoO; it is not your turn. You can if you are taking a readied action, and did not move before readying the action.I think Fineas just mispoke the word AoO and ment to say "Readied Action" as he started saying in the begining of the sentance.

Casting defensivly does not negate a readied action set to "When he starts casting..."
FineasBoggs
06-08-05, 05:02 PM Oops. That's what I meant, and you're right casting defensively doesn't negate the readied action....thus plaster away. :)
abekonge
07-03-05, 08:42 PM According to the way AoO rules are written and interpreted, if D'Nabre decided to make one of his attacks against the spellcaster a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder (without having Improved Trip, Disarm, or Sunder feats), then the spellcaster would get an AoO against him, as i could not find any mention that casting a spell prevents one from making AoO's.

Just to illustrate the situation, spellcaster is casting a spell with free hand while holding a weapon in his other hand. D'Nabre decides to Sunder spellcaster's weapon. According to the rules, spellcaster gets to attack D'Nabre first while fully concentrating on and in the process of trying to cast a spell simply because D'Nabre decided to strike at spellcaster's weapon rather than spellcaster's head.

If this is so, does it actually make sense to anyone?

And, as long as we're on the subject of seemingly illogical AoO's, i was looking around at the Wizards of the Coast homepage when i came across this reference to an AoO rules question:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

According to the section that starts:

When an Attack of Opportunity Provokes an Attack of Opportunity

In some cases, you can make an attack of opportunity that provokes an attack of opportunity against you. For example, a foe runs past you, leaving a square you threaten and provoking an attack of opportunity from you. If you choose to disarm your foe, you'll provoke an opportunity from that foe (unless you're out of the foe's reach).

and also the section below that starts with "Attack of Opportunity Chains".

This interpretation is also supported by the v3.5 FAQ
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
also seems to support it.

Again, logically, there is no reason why someone who's literally runing past you should get an extra attack just because you are hitting at the running opponent's weapon rather than his head.

It would seem that the rule should be revised so that any action that is taken as an AoO does not provoke an AoO in return.
Nom
07-03-05, 11:17 PM According to the way AoO rules are written and interpreted, if D'Nabre decided to make one of his attacks against the spellcaster a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder (without having Improved Trip, Disarm, or Sunder feats), then the spellcaster would get an AoO against him, as i could not find any mention that casting a spell prevents one from making AoO's."While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you". This is in the full-round actions section, but there's no reason to assume that it doesn't apply while casting a standard action spell. It's just not specified there because you rarely have the opportunity to make AoOs on your turn.
It would seem that the rule should be revised so that any action that is taken as an AoO does not provoke an AoO in return.This leads to the broken situation where people prefer to take such actions as AoOs because they can do them safely. If you are going to house rule, you should house rule the other way: you cannot use an attack on an AoO that would itself provoke an AoO.

To the original question: yes, you could provoke an AoO and trigger a readied action. IMO, if otherwise simultaneous the AoO should always fire first. This prevents the following situation:

- caster begins casting
- readied action triggers, attacker moves adjacent (5 ft step, maybe?) and attacks
- attacker claims AoO

If the attacker was not in a position to make an AoO when the actor declared their action, then they should not be able to make one because they have used their readied action to move into a threatening situation.
abekonge
07-03-05, 11:57 PM Nom,

Thanks for the clarification and agreed on the application of "While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you" rule to standard action spell casting.

Still not so certain about the logic of AoO chains, as i feel it is more "broken" to give an AoO to the running opponent than to allow a non-AoO-invoking Disarm or Sunder attempt.

After all, the whole idea behind AoO's is to penalize those who ignore the dangers of leaving themselves open to attacks in threatened zones.

That said, your suggestion of "you cannot use an attack on an AoO that would itself provoke an AoO" is not a bad one at first glance. One could argue that attacks that incur an AoO do so because they take time to set up, and, since an AoO is a sort of instant reaction to an opening, there is not time to set up a Disarm, Sunder, or Trip (unless you have Improved Disarm, Sunder, or Trip or are Tripping with a weapon).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
D'Nabre 06-08-05, 01:42 PM	If I ready an action to attack somebody when they do an action which provokes an AoO, do I get both my readied attack and the AoO? For example, I'm standing next to spell caster. I ready an action to attack him when he casts a spell. He starts casting, my readied action goes off and he provokes an AoO. Do I get two attacks? My table ruling for this has been, only one attack. Just because you're ready for them to provoke the AoO you shouldn't get an extra attack in my opinion. I'm looking for rules to cover it though. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 02:15 PM	If I ready an action to attack somebody when they do an action which provokes an AoO, do I get both my readied attack and the AoO? I'd think so. An AoO and a Readied attack both interrupt, and are resolved before, the triggering action. If you readied an action vs an AoO-provoking action, and someone else was threatening the triggering character, that third individual should certainly get thier AoO, as well as you getting your ready, for instance. All the conditions for an AoO are in place, and the ready has been triggered, so, to be fair to the readying/threatening character, both should happen. You could visualize the two attack & damage rolls as representing a single strike (particularly deadly, because the viticm is open, and you were specifically prepared for that opening). As a DM, it might not be unreasonable to resolve the Ready and AoO sepparately (I'd presume the Ready, first, but you could go either way), and to disallow the latter, if the former ends the provoking action. Note that a player could specify his ready condition to go off, iff the AoO doesn't succeed. Instead of Readying vs a cast spell, it could be Readying vs a cast spell that isn't stopped by an AoO (which would go off if the caster cast defensively, the AoO missed, or the caster made his concentration check after the AoO hit).
Zherog 06-08-05, 02:16 PM	You would get both attacks.
D'Nabre 06-08-05, 02:26 PM	As a DM, it might not be unreasonable to resolve the Ready and AoO sepparately (I'd presume the Ready, first, but you could go either way), and to disallow the latter, if the former ends the provoking action. Well, casting a spell is just an example, I'm concerned with an AoO in this situation. I'm pretty sure the rules say you get both attacks, it just doesn't seem to make sense. "I'm going to stand ready and attack him when he lets his guard down. hit. Oh, he let his guard down, I get to attack him hit again".
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 02:36 PM	I'm pretty sure the rules say you get both attacks, it just doesn't seem to make sense. "I'm going to stand ready and attack him when he lets his guard down. hit. Oh, he let his guard down, I get to attack him hit again". A lot of things about the initiative system don't make sense if you take them too litterally. A caster can just 5' step back and cast a spell, while the warrior threatening him is 'forced to wait for his turn' to 5' step after him, for instance. Like I said, you could visualize it as a single, exceptionally dangerous attack, modeled by a pair of attack rolls. Heck, you could think of itterative attacks that way. Hitting someone 5 times and killing him could be visualized as a single skillful thrust as well as a flurry of hacking and slashing, depending on the ..uh.. 'idiom' of the attacker.... ;)
D'Nabre 06-08-05, 02:45 PM	Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position.
TheMagister 06-08-05, 03:11 PM	Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position. The situation you've outlined here doesn't seem to be a problem with the rules, it's maybe a problem with your combat style (don't be offended! I'm NOT trying to be offensive!). If this situation crops up a lot in your games, then maybe you need to brush up on the combat rules in the PHB; many of the AoOs a character normally generates can be gotten around with clever use of feats or skills. If this isn't the case, then your players are to be commended for thinking ahead and using strategy and battlefield placement to achieve an advantage. It wouldn't be fair to ban/change the RAW just because one of your players is more rules savvy than you are. There's no shame in having more to your life than D&D and not being able to spend so much time finding neat little ways to make the rules work to your advantage. With all respect, TM
Tsuul 06-08-05, 03:16 PM	The players may forfeit their turns completly; that should balance this out. Consider the player who readies an action to attack a wizard(who is next to him) when the wizard casts a spell. If the wizard decides to move 30' away before casting, then the player only gets an AoO for the movement and loses the readied action to attack. Had the player readied a charge instead, the player would again lose that action if the wizard only took a 5' step back to cast. Some DMs allow for a Sense Motive to help determine what kind of readied action the opponent is queued for.
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 03:18 PM	Beyond the questionable realism, it's getting to be problem with players. They'll look ahead to see where an NPC is likely to invoke an AoO, and arrange to be there with an action readied. Ends up doubles the damage when someone wants to take the AoO to get into a better position. Sure, but consider if you have the NPC perform a different, non-provoking action. The PC has lost his readied action completely, and gets no AoO: he's completely wasted a round.
D'Nabre 06-08-05, 03:27 PM	The situation you've outlined here doesn't seem to be a problem with the rules, it's maybe a problem with your combat style (don't be offended! I'm NOT trying to be offensive!). If this situation crops up a lot in your games, then maybe you need to brush up on the combat rules in the PHB; many of the AoOs a character normally generates can be gotten around with clever use of feats or skills. There's no way to avoid the AoO from leaving threatened squares short of tumbling, which not everybody can do. If this isn't the case, then your players are to be commended for thinking ahead and using strategy and battlefield placement to achieve an advantage. I'm constantly commending their tactics. They're much better than mine :D. This tactic just doesn't make sense in realism. [QUOTE=TheMagister] It wouldn't be fair to ban/change the RAW just because one of your players is more rules savvy than you are. There's no shame in having more to your life than D&D and not being able to spend so much time finding neat little ways to make the rules work to your advantage. I'm aware of the rules for readied actions and AoO, but it's easy to overlook special exceptions, which is one of the reasons I'm asking about this. When the rules don't make sense, needless violate realism, and adversely effective the game, it is reasonable to change them. In this case, it doesn't really adversely effect the game. Though it does limit NPC tactics, which consider the kind of tactics my players like to use, reduces the fun of combat. This also fails the test of the expected response if my NPCs start doing the same thing. I'm thinking all in all, to just say you can't ready an action to trigger when someone invokes an AoO. Being capable to take an AoO means you've already readied yourself to attack when take that action. I think that's reasonable within the limits of what you can say will trigger a readied action.
D'Nabre 06-08-05, 03:30 PM	The players may forfeit their turns completly; that should balance this out. Consider the player who readies an action to attack a wizard(who is next to him) when the wizard casts a spell. If the wizard decides to move 30' away before casting, then the player only gets an AoO for the movement and loses the readied action to attack. Had the player readied a charge instead, the player would again lose that action if the wizard only took a 5' step back to cast. Some DMs allow for a Sense Motive to help determine what kind of readied action the opponent is queued for. Sense motive might for reasonable intelligent creatures. In general though, the people they're fighting won't know what they've readied an action to do, and often won't even be able to tell they've readied an action.
TheMagister 06-08-05, 03:40 PM	There's no way to avoid the AoO from leaving threatened squares short of tumbling, which not everybody can do. All you have to do is withdraw. If you withdraw, the square that you start the movement from is not considered threatened. If you're dealing with a PC with reach, well, them's just the breaks; reach just allows more AoOs. If you're able to withdraw through some allies, your pursuer will face them instead of you (they're effectively covering your retreat). I'm aware of the rules for readied actions and AoO, but it's easy to overlook special exceptions, which is one of the reasons I'm asking about this. When the rules don't make sense, needless violate realism, and adversely effective the game, it is reasonable to change them. In this case, it doesn't really adversely effect the game. Though it does limit NPC tactics, which consider the kind of tactics my players like to use, reduces the fun of combat. This also fails the test of the expected response if my NPCs start doing the same thing. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Your players are getting more attacks via smart maneuvering. What's not fun about that? Why can't NPCs use those same tactics? If they work, they're bound to be well-known. I'm thinking all in all, to just say you can't ready an action to trigger when someone invokes an AoO. Being capable to take an AoO means you've already readied yourself to attack when take that action. I think that's reasonable within the limits of what you can say will trigger a readied action. Being ready to take advantage of your opponent lowering his guard and readying an action to take place during a triggering action are two different things. If they happen to be the SAME instance, both apply. It really shouldn't happen all that much. TM
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 03:51 PM	Sense motive might for reasonable intelligent creatures. In general though, the people they're fighting won't know what they've readied an action to do, and often won't even be able to tell they've readied an action. Still, avoiding AoO-provoking actions is a good idea, most of the time. So readying for an AoO provoking action strikes me as a little... optimistic. With the caster example, for instance, casting defensively or stepping away would make more sense, and would negate the AoO (and in the latter case, possibly even the Ready).
FineasBoggs 06-08-05, 04:07 PM	A lot of things about the initiative system don't make sense if you take them too litterally. A caster can just 5' step back and cast a spell, while the warrior threatening him is 'forced to wait for his turn' to 5' step after him, for instance. Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him.
Merestil Haye 06-08-05, 04:30 PM	Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him.You cannot take a 5' step when taking an AoO; it is not your turn. You can if you are taking a readied action, and did not move before readying the action. The caster always has the option of casting defensively, which would also avoid AoO's and therefore readied actions contingent on him provoking AoOs - but not those readied actions that trigger on the caster casting a spell.
Tsuul 06-08-05, 04:37 PM	Unless he readied for the casting, in which case he would just take his 5' step as part of the AoO and plaster him. You cannot take a 5' step when taking an AoO; it is not your turn. You can if you are taking a readied action, and did not move before readying the action.I think Fineas just mispoke the word AoO and ment to say "Readied Action" as he started saying in the begining of the sentance. Casting defensivly does not negate a readied action set to "When he starts casting..."
FineasBoggs 06-08-05, 05:02 PM	Oops. That's what I meant, and you're right casting defensively doesn't negate the readied action....thus plaster away. :)
abekonge 07-03-05, 08:42 PM	According to the way AoO rules are written and interpreted, if D'Nabre decided to make one of his attacks against the spellcaster a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder (without having Improved Trip, Disarm, or Sunder feats), then the spellcaster would get an AoO against him, as i could not find any mention that casting a spell prevents one from making AoO's. Just to illustrate the situation, spellcaster is casting a spell with free hand while holding a weapon in his other hand. D'Nabre decides to Sunder spellcaster's weapon. According to the rules, spellcaster gets to attack D'Nabre first while fully concentrating on and in the process of trying to cast a spell simply because D'Nabre decided to strike at spellcaster's weapon rather than spellcaster's head. If this is so, does it actually make sense to anyone? And, as long as we're on the subject of seemingly illogical AoO's, i was looking around at the Wizards of the Coast homepage when i came across this reference to an AoO rules question: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a According to the section that starts: When an Attack of Opportunity Provokes an Attack of Opportunity In some cases, you can make an attack of opportunity that provokes an attack of opportunity against you. For example, a foe runs past you, leaving a square you threaten and provoking an attack of opportunity from you. If you choose to disarm your foe, you'll provoke an opportunity from that foe (unless you're out of the foe's reach). and also the section below that starts with "Attack of Opportunity Chains". This interpretation is also supported by the v3.5 FAQ http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a also seems to support it. Again, logically, there is no reason why someone who's literally runing past you should get an extra attack just because you are hitting at the running opponent's weapon rather than his head. It would seem that the rule should be revised so that any action that is taken as an AoO does not provoke an AoO in return.
Nom 07-03-05, 11:17 PM	According to the way AoO rules are written and interpreted, if D'Nabre decided to make one of his attacks against the spellcaster a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder (without having Improved Trip, Disarm, or Sunder feats), then the spellcaster would get an AoO against him, as i could not find any mention that casting a spell prevents one from making AoO's."While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you". This is in the full-round actions section, but there's no reason to assume that it doesn't apply while casting a standard action spell. It's just not specified there because you rarely have the opportunity to make AoOs on your turn. It would seem that the rule should be revised so that any action that is taken as an AoO does not provoke an AoO in return.This leads to the broken situation where people prefer to take such actions as AoOs because they can do them safely. If you are going to house rule, you should house rule the other way: you cannot use an attack on an AoO that would itself provoke an AoO. To the original question: yes, you could provoke an AoO and trigger a readied action. IMO, if otherwise simultaneous the AoO should always fire first. This prevents the following situation: - caster begins casting - readied action triggers, attacker moves adjacent (5 ft step, maybe?) and attacks - attacker claims AoO If the attacker was not in a position to make an AoO when the actor declared their action, then they should not be able to make one because they have used their readied action to move into a threatening situation.
abekonge 07-03-05, 11:57 PM	Nom, Thanks for the clarification and agreed on the application of "While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you" rule to standard action spell casting. Still not so certain about the logic of AoO chains, as i feel it is more "broken" to give an AoO to the running opponent than to allow a non-AoO-invoking Disarm or Sunder attempt. After all, the whole idea behind AoO's is to penalize those who ignore the dangers of leaving themselves open to attacks in threatened zones. That said, your suggestion of "you cannot use an attack on an AoO that would itself provoke an AoO" is not a bad one at first glance. One could argue that attacks that incur an AoO do so because they take time to set up, and, since an AoO is a sort of instant reaction to an opening, there is not time to set up a Disarm, Sunder, or Trip (unless you have Improved Disarm, Sunder, or Trip or are Tripping with a weapon).