Post/Author/DateTime	Post
danielinthewolvesden 04-09-07, 08:20 PM	Ok, we had this happen last nite. We had an archer backed into a croner vs a monster with Combat reflexes and a high Dex. The Archer did a full attack, with 4 arrows (3+1 hasted). After some discussion we ruled that the monster got one AoO vs each shot (before the shot of course) so it was whack-shoot-whack-shoot-whack-shoot and so forth. But another made the argument that the archer was only taking ONE action- a "full attack". :confused: Searching Rules of the Game did not help. Anyone?
Zherog 04-09-07, 08:23 PM	You won't see a consensus on this issue. You'll get two groups, with the exact arguments you present. Either it's each attack provokes, or it's a single (full attack) action that therefore only provokes once. I'm in the "each shot provokes" camp, but I can certainly see the arguments the other direction.
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-07, 09:00 PM	You won't see a consensus on this issue. You'll get two groups, with the exact arguments you present. Either it's each attack provokes, or it's a single (full attack) action that therefore only provokes once. I'm in the "each shot provokes" camp, but I can certainly see the arguments the other direction. ZheroG speaks for me as well. The reason I believe it's for each arrow is that a full attack involves making multiple ranged attacks, and the ranged attacks themselves provoke. That said, it *could* still fall under the "multiple provocations from the same action" clause, like moving in and out of a monster's threatened area with the same move action.
Inigo Carmine 04-09-07, 10:47 PM	I fall into Zherog's camp as well. I see a full attack as a series of seperate attack actions. As he also said though, I wouldn't argue if a DM ruled otherwise. Note: I would let the archer know this. Also, the only consequence of committing to a fullround action is the inability to make other actions (in fact, you are still in a state of limbo until you make a second attack; after a single attack you can decide to proceed on with a full attack action or take a move action). After getting AoOed on his second attack, the archer is allowed to stop attacking (though he wouldn't be able to do anything else aside from free/swift/non actions).
Lucas Blackstone 04-09-07, 10:52 PM	Barring some sort of errata, the book says attacking with a ranged weapon provokes. Each time you roll the to hit die to see if your ranged weapon hits, you are attacking with it, and would provoke each time. Manyshot would only provoke once for instance, because you made one attack that happened to launch two arrows. Greater Manyshot would provoke for each shot since each arrow requires an attack roll. The reason I would say they are not the same attack action is because spells like truestrike don't work on all the attacks in a full attack action. It's the next attack. The full round attack action isn't treated as one action in that case, and it logically wouldn't be for AoO's.
Nom 04-09-07, 11:12 PM	But spells like true strike work on your "next attack", which is not necessarily the same thing as an attack action or a full attack action. Both AoOs and Charge grant attacks, but neither is an attack action or a full attack action. For added fun, note that reloading a crossbow with Rapid Reload still provokes an AoO, so RAW a light crossbow wielder could potentially provoke two AoOs per shot (one to reload, one to shoot).
Frugal 04-10-07, 09:22 AM	Agreeing with Zherog here, it's the specific action that provokes; in this case attack (ranged) is what's provoking. If you want to argue that it's a single action (full attack) then you'll note that a full attack action isn't listed on the table of actions so it doesn't provoke an AoO at all. Or look at it another way, suppose I have 4 attacks and full attack, first I try to sunder, then disarm (sunder didn't break the weapon), then grapple, then trip (grapple didn't work). If I don't have the feats then each one of those actions is a provoking action and if my opponent has combat reflexes (and a high enough DEX mod) then he can take an AoO for each of those actions.
jaelis 04-10-07, 09:57 AM	I agree with everyone else. I'd explain it like this: there is an unstated type of action in the dnd rules, an "attack." It's defining quality is that you can do several of these in a full attack. Among other things, you can use an attack to make a melee attack, a ranged attack, an unarmed attack, trip, sunder, or disarm. Several of those actions provoke AoOs themselves, and they do so each time you perform them. The "full attack" action itself doesn't ever provoke at all, it's just the individual attack actions that do. By the contrary reasoning, you could make a disarm attack with your dagger, then throw it, then make an unarmed strike, all as a single full attack, and claim to only provoke once. That doesn't seem right to me at all.
Frugal 04-10-07, 10:02 AM	I'd explain it like this: there is an unstated type of action in the dnd rules, an "attack." It's defining quality is that you can do several of these in a full attack. Among other things, you can use an attack to make a melee attack, a ranged attack, an unarmed attack, trip, sunder, or disarm. Several of those actions provoke AoOs themselves, and they do so each time you perform them. The "full attack" action itself doesn't ever provoke at all, it's just the individual attack actions that do. The thing is, it's not unstated. It's right there on the list of actions you can take. It's one, of several, standard actions. It also does have the unique feature of being able to be used more than once in the full attack action.
jaelis 04-10-07, 10:08 AM	Yes, but there is something more that regular attacks, disarms, trips etc have in common that isn't captured by saying that there is an "attack standard action." I think it is clearer to think of there being various "attack" actions, any of which can be performed as a standard action. But they can also be performed as iterative attacks, or during a spring attack, or while fighting defensively, etc. While other similar standard actions (like manyshot for instance) cannot. Like I said, it just seems easier to think about that way to me.
sineous blackspell 04-10-07, 10:23 AM	i thought id read somewhere that you can only make 1 attack of opportunity against a particular opponent per round no matter how many he presents in a round?
Frugal 04-10-07, 10:25 AM	i thought id read somewhere that you can only make 1 attack of opportunity against a particular opponent per round no matter how many he presents in a round? Nope, it's only 1 attack per provocation. You might be thinking about the movement rules where you only provoke 1 AoO (per creature) no matter how many squares he threatens you exit.
tarkin 04-10-07, 11:22 AM	I am sorry, Zherog I disagree with you. This has a clear explanation, written into the core rules. My reasoning is the Movement stuff. First, please note, that a single attack is what provokes the AoO, not the action. If I only one of my attacks prokes, than you still get an AoO, even if the rest of the Full Attack does not. But note, a single action can provoke multiple times. Hence the special exception that prevents you from taking multiple AoO's due to movement. But because there is no special exception for Full Attack, the rules are clear: You can take multiple AoOs if you have Combat Reflexes and someone uses a Full Attack action to fire multiple arrows. ------------ Now "ManyShot" could be a different story, but the answer for a Full Attack is a definite "Multiple AoOs"
Zherog 04-10-07, 11:25 AM	I am sorry, Zherog I disagree with you. >>snippage<< So... you disagree with me by having the same opinion as I do - that multiple ranged attacks provoke multiple AoOs? :confused:
jaelis 04-10-07, 11:45 AM	He probably disagrees about the existance of a reasonable counterargument.
Hsien 04-10-07, 12:06 PM	For some reason a Monty Python sketch springs to mind...this only occassioanly triggers an AoO...usually in form of a throw soda cap. "I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am" Monty Python Sketch
Nom 04-10-07, 11:03 PM	I'd explain it like this: there is an unstated type of action in the dnd rules, an "attack."Nitpick: "attack" isn't an action, it's a resolution step in other actions, most commonly the various attack actions and the full attack action. This is clear from table 8-2, which notes that "2 7. these attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action.", thereby clearly distinguishing between the action and the attack.
jaelis 04-11-07, 12:05 AM	Yep. My interpretation is kind of a houserule, though it doesn't actually change anything mechanically. I think it just makes things easier to interpret.
wizarddog 04-11-07, 02:09 AM	Ok, we had this happen last nite. We had an archer backed into a croner vs a monster with Combat reflexes and a high Dex. The Archer did a full attack, with 4 arrows (3+1 hasted). After some discussion we ruled that the monster got one AoO vs each shot (before the shot of course) so it was whack-shoot-whack-shoot-whack-shoot and so forth. But another made the argument that the archer was only taking ONE action- a "full attack". :confused: Searching Rules of the Game did not help. Anyone? I'm kinda intrested on how the archer got themselves into this situation in the first place! :eek: Use some tumble and get the hell past that creature so you can take 5 ft steps ;)
Dheran 04-11-07, 10:07 AM	Either it's each attack provokes, or it's a single (full attack) action that therefore only provokes once. Or you follow the rules, and it's neither: A full attack never provokes Attacks of Opportunity. Barring some sort of errata, the book says attacking with a ranged weapon provokes. No, actually the book says attacking with a ranged weapon as a standard action provokes an AoO. danielinthewolvesden stated that the archer made a full attack. Just look at Table 8-2: Actions in Combat and you'll see that a Standard Action, Attack (ranged) provokes, but a Full-Round Action, Full attack doesn't provoke. The text doesn't disagree with this in any regard, so it's not a "text trumps table" issue. In fact, this argument (in passing) has already been made:If you want to argue that it's a single action (full attack) then you'll note that a full attack action isn't listed on the table of actions so it doesn't provoke an AoO at all. Is this what the designers intended? Probably not; some of them clearly had the idea that "attack action" was a clearly defined game term. If "attack action" could substitute for any of the various attacks (standard action attack, full attack, attack of opportunity, or bonus attack) then they could have redone the AoO chart to reference "attack action". But they didn't do that, and "attack action" was never defined in the rules. Nom alluded to this: Nitpick: "attack" isn't an action, it's a resolution step in other actions, most commonly the various attack actions and the full attack action. This is clear from table 8-2, which notes that "2. these attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action.", thereby clearly distinguishing between the action and the attack. [You're obfuscating things here, Nom. It's actually footnote 7, not 2, and footnote 7 only applies to Disarm and Grapple attacks.] I've checked the book, the errata, the FAQ, and the two "Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity" articles. There's nothing that contradicts the RAW that full attacks, ranged or otherwise, don't provoke AoOs. The only part that even verges on addressing this issue is a single FAQ response (to the question that begins "Suppose a fighter and an archer go at the same initiative") that appears to assume that some part of a ranged full attack would provoke, although this is never explicitly stated. There's one logistical problem using the RAW in this particular instance. An attacker isn't required to decide whether they're making a full attack until after their first attack, which at that time is ambiguously either a standard action attack or the first attack of a full attack. So it's not clear whether the first ranged attack would provoke an AoO until the action type is finalized. However, there's a similar logistical problem with TWF: the penalties need to be applied to the first swing even though that could also be just a single standard action attack. The resolution, in both cases, is to decide on the action type beforehand. So my question is this: Does anyone follow the RAW on this issue?
Frugal 04-11-07, 10:19 AM	Or you follow the rules, and it's neither: A full attack never provokes Attacks of Opportunity. You're right, the act of making the full attack doesn't provoke. However, that full attack action grants you several attack actions (if your BAB is high enough), and if those are ranged, they do provoke. It's the same as charging, I can charge and attempt to sunder without the improved sunder feat (or grapple, trip, disarm, etc), by your reasoning since a charge doesn't provoke (unless the movement has you leaving a threatened square) then my sunder attempt doesn't provoke either.
Dheran 04-11-07, 10:26 AM	However, that full attack action grants you several attack actions (if your BAB is high enough), and if those are ranged, they do provoke. But Frugal, I already pointed out that "attack action" isn't defined in the game. The only defined term that applies in this case is full attack action, and the RAW states that this does not provoke an AoO. A full attack action grants you several attacks. The rules state that a ranged attack as a standard action provokes an AoO. The rules don't make that same claim about a ranged attack as (all or part of) a full attack action.
Egres 04-11-07, 10:28 AM	the book says attacking with a ranged weapon as a standard action provokes an AoO. danielinthewolvesden stated that the archer made a full attack. Just look at Table 8-2: Actions in Combat and you'll see that a Standard Action, Attack (ranged) provokes, but a Full-Round Action, Full attack doesn't provoke. By your reasoning attacking with unarmed strikes in a full round action wouldn't provoke either. Not to mention casting a spell with a full round casting time.
jaelis 04-11-07, 10:35 AM	So my question is this: Does anyone follow the RAW on this issue? No. At best, it's like the dead people walking around thing.
Frugal 04-11-07, 10:36 AM	By your reasoning attacking with unarmed strikes in a full round action wouldn't provoke either. Not to mention casting a spell with a full round casting time. Or sundering, disarming, tripping, etc. I don't see what the issue is, an attack is typically a standard action, so that's where it's listed on the table. A full attack action is an exception to the rules and gives you multiple attacks. Great, I select a certain type of attack (such as a ranged attack) and I want to know if it provokes, I look at the table and see that a ranged attack provokes, done. As I said already, the full attack action does not provoke, but the attacks that you make as part of that full attack action can.
Kursk 04-11-07, 10:37 AM	I play each shot provokes as one can swing the sword at least as fast as, pull arrow, load, pull, release.
Frugal 04-11-07, 10:40 AM	But Frugal, I already pointed out that "attack action" isn't defined in the game. The only defined term that applies in this case is full attack action, and the RAW states that this does not provoke an AoO. A full attack action grants you several attacks. The rules state that a ranged attack as a standard action provokes an AoO. The rules don't make that same claim about a ranged attack as (all or part of) a full attack action. Right, but I can't make any melee or ranged attacks, or sunder, disarm, trip, etc because those are all standard actions and attack isn't defined right? That's what you're saying.
Dheran 04-11-07, 10:59 AM	By your reasoning attacking with unarmed strikes in a full round action wouldn't provoke either. That's correct. Not to mention casting a spell with a full round casting time. Huh? What part of "casting a spell" equates with "full attack"? It's true that there isn't an entry for "Cast a spell" under "Full-Round Action" on Table 8-2: Actions in Combat, but the text under "FULL-ROUND ACTIONS" is clear.You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least one full round. They not only state that you provoke an AoO for casting a full round (or longer) spell, but when that AoO occurs.
Dheran 04-11-07, 11:05 AM	So my question is this: Does anyone follow the RAW on this issue?No. At best, it's like the dead people walking around thing. I don't buy that reasoning, jaelis. The "dead people walking" argument is that the rules don't say you can't. My argument is that the RAW very explicitly states that full-round attacks don't provoke AoOs. I've only played with one group that followed the RAW on this point, and was wondering if there were any others. I don't know of any other rule in the game that's disregarded as commonly as this one.
Egres 04-11-07, 11:07 AM	That's correct. Funny. After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action. So, a character without IUS makes a single attack, and provokes an AoO. Then, he decides to follow with other unarmed strikes, and they provoke. But the first attack was made as part of a full attack nonetheless. This shows how flawed is your reasoning.
Dheran 04-11-07, 11:51 AM	So, a character without IUS makes a single attack, and provokes an AoO. Then, he decides to follow with other unarmed strikes, and they provoke. But the first attack was made as part of a full attack nonetheless. This shows how flawed is your reasoning.No this, shows how flawed is your reading. I already brought up this point in my original post: There's one logistical problem using the RAW in this particular instance. An attacker isn't required to decide whether they're making a full attack until after their first attack, which at that time is ambiguously either a standard action attack or the first attack of a full attack. So it's not clear whether the first ranged attack would provoke an AoO until the action type is finalized. However, there's a similar logistical problem with TWF: the penalties need to be applied to the first swing even though that could also be just a single standard action attack. The resolution, in both cases, is to decide on the action type beforehand. Next time, read before responding. You won't embarrass yourself as much if you follow that simple rule.
jaelis 04-11-07, 12:26 PM	the RAW very explicitly states that full-round attacks don't provoke AoOs. I wouldn't say "very." It depends on a pretty restricted reading of what an action is compared to what an attack is. I rather agree that a careful reading does mean what you say, but if something is "very explict" then you don't need to read it carefully. I don't know of any other rule in the game that's disregarded as commonly as this one. I could debate the dead characters question. (There's no rule that halflings can't fly either, after all.) Or I could just keep coming up with examples, like monks not being proficient with their unarmed strike. The point is that the rules weren't written by computer programmers or lawyers. And they wouldn't be very readable if they were. So why worry about mistakes here and there?
Egres 04-11-07, 12:37 PM	No this, shows how flawed is your reading. I already brought up this point in my original post: Next time, read before responding. You won't embarrass yourself as much if you follow that simple rule. I'm so embarassed by your ignorance. Your point of view is flawed because you think that your interpretation is valid, by you don't even know what "interpretation" means As a lawyer and a law teacher at University I know that the literal interpretation is only the first step to interpret a ruletext. The fact that a full round action doesn't provoke any AoO is meaningless, since each single attack you can do in a full attack will provoke an AoO. Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. There's no mention regarding attacking in a full round action or not, so we know that every unarmed strike will provoke an AoO. Not to mention disarm attacks, trips, grapple attempts and so on. Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. You'll never find anything in the rules that support your false statement: thus those attacks will provoke an AoO each time they are used in a full attack. The fact that the table talks about them when used with a standard action is meaningless, since doesn't mean in any possible interpretation that the generale statements above can't be applied in a full attack. Try to prove me wrong.
Dheran 04-11-07, 01:43 PM	The fact that a full round action doesn't provoke any AoO is meaningless, since each single attack you can do in a full attack will provoke an AoO. There's no mention regarding attacking in a full round action or not, so we know that every unarmed strike will provoke an AoO.STANDARD ACTIONS Attack Unarmed Attacks: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. All I had to do to refute your point was to include the header information you omitted, in the PH cyan color. The statement about unarmed attacks provoking is clearly restricted to the text describing standard action attacks. Context matters.
Frugal 04-11-07, 01:47 PM	All I had to do to refute your point was to include the header information you omitted, in the PH cyan color. The statement about unarmed attacks provoking is clearly restricted to the text describing standard action attacks. Context matters. So you can't make an unarmed attack as part of a full attack? It's a standard action after all. Not to mention any melee or ranged attack as they're standard actions too. Congratulations, you've proven that in spite of the name, a "full attack" action does not actually allow you to attack! I guess you just stand there and give up all actions aside from a 5' step.
Dheran 04-11-07, 02:13 PM	So you can't make an unarmed attack as part of a full attack? It's a standard action after all. Not to mention any melee or ranged attack as they're standard actions too. Congratulations, you've proven that in spite of the name, a "full attack" action does not actually allow you to attack! I guess you just stand there and give up all actions aside from a 5' step. Very droll, Frugal. But you're overlooking the primary text under "Action Types", before the mention of standard action unarmed attacks:The most common type of full-round action is a full attack, which allows you to make multiple melee or ranged attacks in a single round. And just to nip continued silliness along this line in the bud, I'll point out that the primary description for unarmed strikes, as well as all other melee and ranged weaponry, is under "Weapons" in the "Equipment" chapter. The text about unarmed strikes under "Standard Actions" isn't needed to let you know how to make an unarmed strike as part of a full attack. The same goes for melee and ranged attacks with weapons, as well. So it seems you can attack during a full attack after all!
Nom 04-11-07, 04:36 PM	[You're obfuscating things here, Nom. It's actually footnote 7, not 2Gah! I used an online SRD, and assumed the footnotes were numbered the same. Yes, I do mean 7. and footnote 7 only applies to Disarm and Grapple attacks.]Yes and no. The point of footnote 7 is that "attack" and "attack action" are two distinct categories, and that grapple / disarm / trip substitute for the former, not the latter. But yes, it is relevant. PH pg 139 (yep, using the book this time) is quite clear that unarmed attacks provoke AoOs, but says nothing explicit about ranged attacks. As far as I can tell, there's an implicit assumption that the AoO references for the various attack actions on PH pg 141 also apply when those are used as attacks, but the rules unfortunately are loose about the distinction between attacks and attack actions except where it is convenient to explicitly call it out (eg footnote 7). A similar looseness applies to other entries too; for example, the AoO entry for 'move' (and, apparently, for 'run') should be 'no'; it is not the move action itself that provokes the AoO but rather leaving a threatened square as part of performing it (footnote 1).
Egres 04-11-07, 06:10 PM	All I had to do to refute your point was to include the header information you omitted, in the PH cyan color. The statement about unarmed attacks provoking is clearly restricted to the text describing standard action attacks. Context matters. Context matters? Then, I wonder why you didn't reply about the special attacks mentioned in my reply, that aren't under any "standard action" header. The "context" of your poor reply shows that you have nothing to say: try again. Not to mention that your reasoning is even more flawed if we look at the charge attack. A charge is a full round action, so, by your reasoning, it doesn't provoke any AoO. The table shows that the charge itself doesn't provoke any AoO. The melee attack at the end of the charge isn't a standard action, so it wouldn't provoke any AoO too. Now, let's take a look at the FAQ: Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is allowed an attack of opportunity, he may use any weapon that threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack. In this case, imagine an enemy who charged the character and then tried to disarm him. The charge attack would provoke an attack of opportunity from the longspear as the enemy moved out of a threatened square (in order to move adjacent to the character and deliver the charge attack). Then, the disarm attempt would provoke another attack of opportunity (assuming the enemy didn’t have Improved Disarm). This attack of opportunity could be made only with the armor spikes, since the longspear doesn’t threaten an adjacent enemy. Have fun.
Dheran 04-11-07, 08:17 PM	Not to mention that your reasoning is even more flawed if we look at the charge attack. A charge is a full round action, so, by your reasoning, it doesn't provoke any AoO. I made no statements about other full-round actions; I only referenced the full attack action. My reasoning hasn't even flirted with charge actions. Too much caffeine today, Egres?
Warric 04-11-07, 11:00 PM	So my question is this: Does anyone follow the RAW on this issue? Being a longtime DM, Dheran, in short I don't follow the RAW on this issue. RAW isn't the be all and end all when it comes to interpreting the rules. Personally, I don't agree with how you see the RAW as applied to these tables, although I can see how you have derived your conclusions.
Egres 04-12-07, 04:06 AM	I made no statements about other full-round actions; I only referenced the full attack action. My reasoning hasn't even flirted with charge actions. The reasoning is the same. The melee attack at the end of the charge isn't a standard action, but it provokes AoO the same. The charge itself, like the full attack action, doesn't provoke any AoO. So we can say that the attack, no matter if we make it via full attack or charge, provokes the AoO. And you didn't reply to my questions about other special attacks too, for the second time: do you need a cup of coffee to wake up?