Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aelryinth 03-18-08, 11:10 PM	Regdar's is down, so I thought I'd post here. There's a great deal of controversy about this Tome of Battle stance regarding the AoO's it grants. I even had someone msg me and present some very coherent arguments why it doesn't work against Tumble and other effects. Now, I've argued for a long time that Tome works against Tumble because Tumble is normal movement, and Thicket trumps it. At the same time, I didn't think it trumped things like Spring Attack. Then I got to thinking that that made absolutely no sense. Thicket should at least 'cancel out' the feats that draw no movement from AoO, which would restore the normal balance of events. So I did what normal people do...I went back and I actually read Thicket of Blades. I promptly went "DUH!" Man, was my memory screwy. I'm going to post the text of the stance here. While you are in this stance, any opponent that you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes an AoO from you. Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten. Your opponents also cannot use the Withdraw action to treat the square they start in as no longer threatened by you. So, let's break this down. First, any opponent that you threaten, that takes any sort of movement - Wait, this is basically default rules. The only change is now, they include a 5' step, and 'also the Withdraw action'. Any form of movement. I read this, and was kind of taken aback. It was basically overriding the normal AoO/movement rules with a whole different level that operates off a single trigger. I read this as basically saying "You may not trigger an AoO by your movement, but you still provoke from Thicket of Blades"...and I doubt your special ability cites Thicket of Blades as something you ignore. It looks very much to me like Thicket trumps all those abilities that ignore normal movement AoO's because of this overlay. From a logical standpoint, the very best situation that you could get into is where the stance and feats/manuvers cancel out, one saying you always provoke, the other saying you don't. This effectively restores the default rules, meaning that you're probably going to get the AoO off regardless. Thicket isn't just adding 5' steps and withdraw actions...it's ALL movement, including Tumble and Spring Attack and Pouncing Charge and whatnot. I have to seriously say that Thicket is even better then I thought. Anything that says allows you ignore AoO's from move now has to contend with this thing granting AoO's from ALL movement. They at best can cancel out...which leaves normal rules in play and you get the AoO regardless, and you still have 5' step smacking and no withdrawing allowed. Is this broken? No. It is, however, very nice, and works out extremely well for control builds. ALL MOVEMENT is a pretty inclusive statement, as universal as "You provoke no AoO's from your target for moving in this way." ===Aelryinth
jaelis 03-19-08, 12:13 AM	I agree, it sounds to me like there's no way to avoid provoking. (Except to avoid being threatened, using cover, concealment, or the like.)
Metafictional 03-19-08, 01:50 AM	I don't fully understand though why Thicket is so strong; if I want to have Spring Attack, it costs me three Feats, and it may be difficult (unless I'm a Fighter) to have it before 6th-level. There really shouldn't be anything that directly counters Spring Attack (other than tactics like readied actions that take the Feat's benefits into account). Thicket doesn't take Spring Attack into account, it just works. In theory, if I attempted to use Spring Attack when dealing with a Thicket-using Crusader, he would make an attack of opportunity and never actually be aware I had Spring Attack! In other words, he not only ignores the Feat, he's not necessarily aware I even have the Feat. In that encounter, I might as well not even have the Feat. Why that's a problem: In a normal game, characters cannot expect to move, attack, and move again without penalty. It takes specific investment and opportunity cost to do such. Similarly, characters cannot expect to move through enemy spaces without penalty, but this is exactly the kind of benefit a character who has optimized Tumble expects to do. Thicket of Blades, on the other hand, implies that it removes these options totally, as part of an ongoing effect that is useful even if someone isn't trying to use Tumble/Spring Attack, etc.. The best analogy I can come up with would be an ability that that increased melee damage, making it always useful, but also let your attacks ignore the target's Concentration skill, allowing the attack to always disrupt spellcasting. Generally, Feats protect you from AoO's and other limits against your actions. You take them to be able to enjoy breaking boundaries. If Thicket counters the benefit of such Feats, that can ultimately make the game less fun to play. Thicket's problem is that it can be categorized with a narrow class of abilities that give you AoO's when normally you shouldn't. Like being able to AoO someone for charging you, or an Opportunist Rogue using an AoO because you were struck in melee combat. These are problematic to me because if you had enemies use them against the players, it throws them completely off their game. The AoO system punishes you for making tactically unsound decisions. Don't lose sight of that concept, it's important to consider. But what happens when charging (Hold the Line), being struck in melee (Opportunist), striking someone else (Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike), or using an ability that specifically protects you (Spring Attack, Shot on the Run, Ride-by Attack, Tumble), is given the same penalty as a tactically unsound action (running in combat, sheathing a weapon, sundering/disarming/grappling/tripping/unarmed combat without the right feats)? I'm not denying that Thicket is powerful, nor am I arguing that it doesn't work exactly how it is written. I just think it probably shouldn't, because it trashes the melee combat game. You shouldn't have to GUESS that you might be letting your guard down. You should know. And even if you rule that someone is aware of whether or not an enemy has Hold the Line, thus preventing you from using a charge action effectively, Thicket has another level of fail. It can be exploited. I'd have a hard time forcing someone to charge me so I can use my Hold the Line Feat. I can't make you attack me if I'm using Robilar's Gambit. But I can use Charging Minotaur to Bull Rush you, thus "moving" you, and rewarding me with an AoO from Thicket...ie, punishing the opponent for the tactical mistake of...being bull rushed? AoO's are about choice. You choose to be threatened by an AoO*. You make a decision, based on the risk factor involved. Thicket of Blades removes any choice, your only choice is to never be in a space that the user threatens...and he can remove that choice by merely walking up to you. *(there are exceptions, if you are feeling very evil, like making a chain-tripper Fighter invisible).
mplindustries 03-19-08, 04:37 AM	I personally think it should work the way you have described, and I've always run it that way. Now, here's something funny. I was about to type up a reply about how, by RAW, tumble should prevent the AoO and I had a bunch of quotes and stuff ready when I decided to reread the text again just to make sure, as I really didn't want it to be the case. Having re-read it, I have completely reversed my opinion. In fact, I think by RAW its even more powerful than that. It does not say, "any movement provokes an AoO, even movement that would not normally." (I think thats pretty clearly the intent, though. What it does say is: "any opponent that you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes an AoO from you." So, whats the significance of that? It says they provoke an AoO if they move. It does not say, "That movement provokes an AoO." The difference is minor, but I think it means that, if someone were to make a "normal movement" out of a threatened square (i.e. one that would normally provoke an AoO anyway), Thicket of Blades seems as if it would cause your opponent to provoke a second AoO. Now, I think it could be reasonable to use this line ("This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity...") to claim that while it provokes for two different reasons, you can't hit them with both AoOs as its still only one "opportunity." That means it would most certainly as Tumble would still prevent the normal movement AoO, but not the special Thicket AoO. I can tell you I would never run it like this, but it sure seems like RAW to me.
Hsien 03-19-08, 09:39 AM	My group doesn't use ToB but heres how I would consider it. Tumble checks and Spring Attack specifically deny AoO for their specific actions, and are not specifically noted by the ToB description. The "any form of movement" notation is just to much like fluff when they then go on to specify that 5' step and Withdraw are specifically included. If they wanted to include tumble/feat's that negate AoO then it really needed to be specified, and not a general "any movement", imo. ToB stance that provides extra AoO conditions and a skill/feat that negates AoO for movement. No AoO for those then, I would have to conclude Tie goes to the runner...or tumbler as the case may be.
mplindustries 03-19-08, 12:27 PM	My group doesn't use ToB but heres how I would consider it. Tumble checks and Spring Attack specifically deny AoO for their specific actions, and are not specifically noted by the ToB description. The "any form of movement" notation is just to much like fluff when they then go on to specify that 5' step and Withdraw are specifically included. If they wanted to include tumble/feat's that negate AoO then it really needed to be specified, and not a general "any movement", imo. ToB stance that provides extra AoO conditions and a skill/feat that negates AoO for movement. No AoO for those then, I would have to conclude Tie goes to the runner...or tumbler as the case may be. I would be inclined to agree, but as I mentioned, it really doesn't seem like its the same kind of AoO. Remember, it doesn't cause the movement itself to trigger AoOs, it triggers one on its own just if they use any form of movement. As in, tumble/spring attack would negate the normal movement AoO, but Thicket of Blades would still trigger a second, different AoO. I know I already said this, but I sometimes feel like people don't read posts that are "too long."
Hsien 03-19-08, 01:40 PM	I would be inclined to agree, but as I mentioned, it really doesn't seem like its the same kind of AoO. Remember, it doesn't cause the movement itself to trigger AoOs, it triggers one on its own just if they use any form of movement. As in, tumble/spring attack would negate the normal movement AoO, but Thicket of Blades would still trigger a second, different AoO. I know I already said this, but I sometimes feel like people don't read posts that are "too long." I thought of that but still think it's determined by how the ToB text is interpreted. Is it really an all encompassing of any movement type and overrides any feats/skills that prevent AoO from movement or ToB simply provides AoO for 2 extra categories of movement, 5' step and Withdraw. Just like I don't see ToB getting an AoO on an opponent that uses magic to move, such as d-door, teleport or reserve feat ( mini-teleport, forget name) which seems to count as "movement" for triggering Scout's Skirmish. Player A has a ToB that allows extra AoO criteria; character B has skill/feat that denies the AoO caused by movement. For my perspective; Tie still goes to the runner. The skill/feat cancels out AoO's caused by that specific action/movement, which would also prevent the ToB movement trigger from activating as it is movement based.
mplindustries 03-19-08, 05:09 PM	Player A has a ToB that allows extra AoO criteria This, I believe, is where we differ. I don't believe the wording of it (which was quoted in the first post if you don't have ToB) actually adds extra criteria for movement based AoOs. It is my contention that it is an entirely separate AoO, not just another trigger. So, if you, for example, just walked away from my threatened zone without tumbling or anything else, you'd trigger one AoO from the movement as normal, and then another from my Thicket of Blades. Again, you could argue that it would be only one opportunity, so the AoO's "overlap" instead of "stacking," but that still would not stop the Tumble or Spring Attack from only stopping the normal AoO and not the second, separate Thicket of Blades AoO. Again though, I want to stress that I wouldn't run it that way, I'm just devil's advocating the RAW. PS - I want to point out that in all cases, as far as D&D is concerned, ties tend to go to the aggressor, case in point being Attack Roll vs. AC.
Howland Reed 03-19-08, 05:42 PM	I agree with Aelrynth's interpretation...and frankly, it's the only one that makes sense to me. If you think that other forms of movement (such as spring attack) that say "does not provoke an AoO" trump Thicket...then what is the use of Thicket? To get AoOs on 5-foot steps and no withdrawal? That's it? Seems to me since it didn't say those were the entirety of the ability, but rather that they were examples, there are necessarily other cases where Thicket works. So...to those who don't think Thicket trumps everything, what DOES it work with? I want at least one example that isn't a.) something that already provokes an AoO or b.) 5-foot step/withdrawal, which are specifically mentioned as only PART of the ability. To the guy who pointed out that it was "unfair" or something for a single stance to beat out a 3-feat chain...this is yet another example of the weakness of early feats. Spring Attack shouldn't be part of a 3-feat chain, IMO. Or rather, it should be the first step in the 3-feat chain of Spring Attack -- Bounding Assault -- Rapid Blitz.
Merestil Haye 03-19-08, 06:15 PM	PS - I want to point out that in all cases, as far as D&D is concerned, ties tend to go to the aggressor, case in point being Attack Roll vs. AC.I know this is a side-track, but this is not the case. Where there is a tie, the advantage generally goes to the defender; this was discussed in Dragon magazine articles around the time of 3.0's release. A creature's AC sets the DC of attack rolls made against it; as with all checks, the DC is the lowest success number. Rolling the AC is not a tie, in D&D terms. It's a success on the attacker's part. Attackers have enough advantages in the game without breaking ties in their favour as well.
kalstrand 03-19-08, 07:01 PM	I think the intent of the stance was to add 5' step and withdraw to the list of things that provoke and AoO while in the stance. I think they just worded it poorly. IF, and thats a big if, we ever get the errata they have been working on since like December or something I think that will be clarified.
Metafictional 03-19-08, 07:26 PM	While I fully believe Thicket's intent is clear, since it's hard to argue with "any movement", abilities like Spring Attack, Tumble, and Charging Minotaur have equally strong wording. From the SRD: Spring Attack Benefit When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor. You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack. So this is the interesting part, really. Thicket says "any movement", and Spring Attack says "Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack." Only one of these two conditions can be the correct one. The same goes for other abilities that prevent AoO's while moving.
aelryinth 03-19-08, 10:59 PM	And that, I believe, is where you'd have to state the two abilities cancel out and normal rules apply...which means default movement triggers AoO's. Note that there is precedent for this. Close-Quarters Fighting does exactly what this does. You get an AoO if someone tries to start a grapple on you, regardless if they have improved Grab or not...you might not even know they have Improved Grab. On top of this, if your AoO hits, you get +dmg to your Resist Grapple roll. It's one (made later) feat cancelling out another one made earlier. This doesn't nerf melee...it allows them to control the ground around them. Getting within the threat range of an accomplished melee fighter should be an extremely dangerous choice for anyone, and this is a very good tool for making that happen. Among other things, the fighter can now stop people from just ignoring him and heading past him, unable to block them...he can now punish them severely for their presumption. It's an ability fighters should have had all the time. I mean, really, a 3rd level rogue can hit the Tumble check to avoid a 20th level fighter EVERY TIME. I'd rather see that not happen then happen. ===Aelryinth
angelus_truelove 03-19-08, 11:23 PM	But the defender doesn't threaten the person doing the Spring Attack. The ability states "any opponent that you threaten that takes any sort of movement." Since the defender does not threaten the attacker, then they would not get the AOO. Same goes for the Tumbler unless the tumbler started in a square threatened by the ability user.
Howland Reed 03-20-08, 02:52 AM	AoOs for movement is always done on a square-by-square basis...you don't check once when they start their movement and then they're clear for the rest of their movement. If the crusader threatens him when he starts to move away after making the spring attack, Thicket kicks in. Heck, the exact same reasoning (that you used) could apply to normal movement and normal AoOs.
mplindustries 03-20-08, 03:40 AM	AoOs for movement is always done on a square-by-square basis...you don't check once when they start their movement and then they're clear for the rest of their movement. If the crusader threatens him when he starts to move away after making the spring attack, Thicket kicks in. Heck, the exact same reasoning (that you used) could apply to normal movement and normal AoOs. I think he was actually under the impression that tumble checks and/or spring attacks actually prevented threatening, rather than just canceling the AoO. Obviously its still wrong, but I guess its...less wrong? No, still very wrong...at least his reasoning isn't bad, just his premises. Yes, thats what I was getting at. Anyway, does nobody else feel as though Thicket, as its written, does not provide new criteria, but rather a totally separate AoO from the one generated by movement? It seems people are just concerned with "the abilities cancel," but nobody's mentioned one way or the other if I'm just crazy or something.
Daehan 03-20-08, 08:16 AM	I don't think bad wording should be grounds to give thicket of blades a free pass to override spring attack and the like. I am inclined to believe the intention of thicket of blades was to simply make 5-foot steps and withdraw provoke attacks of opportunity. Close Quarters Fighting gives specific examples of it overriding improved grapple and improved grab, thicket of blades does no such thing. Thicket of blades states which additional movements are subject to provoking AoO's.
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-20-08, 02:47 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AoO doesn't actually negate the spring attack, it just means you get hit in the process. You can still move in, attack, and move out. The feat doesn't say anywhere that if you get hit during the Spring Attack the funtion fails (it even says you can provoke AoOs from creatures other than the defender). So you still get half the benefit of the feat. Moving before and after attacking. Whats the big deal if one power, which only three classes can get, that not everyone in those classes will take, reduces the strength of a particular ability, a couple of times per encounter? You still get a +4 AC bonus against the AoO, and a +1 dodge AC bonus against the defender if they're your chosen dodgee. Why the fuss?
Daehan 03-20-08, 03:12 PM	Why the fuss? I guess when it comes down to it, I don't care all that much. Everyone I play with agree's that it should only be used as I've stated earlier. However, the fuss isn't because of Spring Attack. It is when you take the wording of feats or abilities or whatever too literally and try to apply a twisted version of it to sneak some monster house combination in on your DM. Also, it is not limited to just three classes. It's available to any class as long as ToB is in play. Just like so many other things, one small twist can make a usefull ability retarded when someone combines it with other things.
mplindustries 03-20-08, 03:45 PM	I don't think bad wording should be grounds to give thicket of blades a free pass to override spring attack and the like. I am inclined to believe the intention of thicket of blades was to simply make 5-foot steps and withdraw provoke attacks of opportunity. Close Quarters Fighting gives specific examples of it overriding improved grapple and improved grab, thicket of blades does no such thing. Thicket of blades states which additional movements are subject to provoking AoO's. The funny thing is, I think the intention is to completely trump everything and always get off an AoO against a moving opponent. Of course, bad wording can and should be grounds to do exactly what is written. Badly written laws get people acquitted. Writers need to be more careful and/or hire me as an editor ;) Side Note: I almost always advocate RAW, but I never play by it. My friends have described my games as something more like "D20 Fantasy" than actually D&D, so I obviously houserule a lot.
angryscrub 03-20-08, 05:19 PM	just to throw a little more into the mix, the tumble skill and spring attack are actually worded differently. spring attack ...Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack... and tumble ...Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.... the phrasing on tumble to me seems to prevent all AoOs, not just those caused by movement, though i'm not sure what else you could do while moving to provoke an AoO. even if as mplindustries suggests it's a different kind of AoO for thicket, since it doesn't specifically address tumble, i don't see how it could work against tumble since tumble specifically provokes no AoOs of any kind. i dunno. YMMV.
mplindustries 03-20-08, 06:06 PM	just to throw a little more into the mix, the tumble skill and spring attack are actually worded differently. the phrasing on tumble to me seems to prevent all AoOs, not just those caused by movement, though i'm not sure what else you could do while moving to provoke an AoO. even if as mplindustries suggests it's a different kind of AoO for thicket, since it doesn't specifically address tumble, i don't see how it could work against tumble since tumble specifically provokes no AoOs of any kind. i dunno. YMMV. The spring attack wording seems pretty clear to me that it does not prevent the Thicket AoO. As for the tumble quote, well, I could see it either way on that. I don't think there can be any conclusive answer with wording like that, as it does say "provoking no AoOs while doing so." I think, on the one hand, it can be read with the very heavily implied understanding that the movement doesn't provoke, or it can just as easily be read that you absolutley do not provoke any AoOs for anything at all while you are tumbling. Both have about equal grounds to be correct, though I think the second is probably more RAW. Which then begs the question, "What can you do that normally provokes while you are moving that you can use tumble to avoid?" Mobile Spellcasting perhaps?