Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sundance8503 04-10-08, 03:39 PM	Another feat question…was thumbing through my PBII and found this cute little feat labeled Robilar’s Gambit. For those of you who don’t know, Robilar’s Gambit gives your opponent a bonus to hit and damage against you when they attack you, however their attacks now provoke an attack of opportunity from you. In it’s basic form it is a decent feat if you hit really really hard and want to do the whole ‘You will only hurt yourself by attacking me’ bit. Pulled out my Tome of Battle and in there is another cute feat called Evasive Reflexes; this one allows you the choice of NOT taking an attack of opportunity, instead you can take an immediate move of 5ft. So here is how I can imagine this feat-stacking to play out: My character has already taken her turn, and now the BBG decides to try and attack me. I use both feats at the same time and am able to move the 5ft needed to get out of his attack range without being hit. So he is left with 5ft between us and has wasted his round. Is this right? If so…I love these feats, will make a good set for my passive Monk :D D
Tordak 04-10-08, 03:51 PM	I think Robillard's Gambit's attack happens after the opponent's, so it wouldn't work. I'm not sure though, haven't read it for a while.
Douglasm 04-10-08, 03:54 PM	Not quite. Robilar's Gambit specifically overrides the normal order of operations for AoOs and makes your AoO happen after the attack that provoked it. So, the BBEG attacks you, hits or misses, and then you get to move 5 feet. If he was trying to full attack, then he would need either reach or a way to follow you (just take his own 5' step if he hasn't moved already this turn) to continue the attack, so you might prevent the followup attacks, but the first attack is already done and resolved.
bkdubs123 04-10-08, 03:59 PM	Well, its a bit hazy as to how they stack when you look strictly at Rules as Written, however the description of the benefit of Robilar's Gambit ends with the sentence: "Resolve your attack of opportunity after your foe's attack." The haziness comes from how Evasive Reflexes is written. When an opponent gives you the chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step. Emphasis mine. What does that mean exactly? The attacks of your foes while using Robilar's Gambit provoke attacks of opportunity, thus satisfying the "gives you the chance to make an attack of opportunity" requirement of Evasive Reflex. Robilar's tells you to resolve your attack of opportunity after your foe's attack, BUT if you choose to use Evasive Reflexes you aren't making an attack of opportunity. Strictly speaking, if you choose to use Evasive Reflexes it looks as though, immediately upon an enemy provoking an attack of opportunity, you take your 5-foot step. Since Robilar's Gambit says nothing of resolving movement after your foe's attack, it looks as though you can move before you get hit, yes. HOWEVER, as a DM I would have to rule that no, you cannot do that. It makes you literally unable to be hit by attack rolls. Further Confusion: Robilar's Gambit says nothing about threat range, nor ranged attacks. If you adopted the Robilar's Gambit fighting stance do characters using ranged attacks gain the bonus to hit and damage against you? What about touch attacs? Ranged touch attacks? Do characters attacking you with a reach weapon provoke attacks of opportunity from you (even though most times you wouldn't be able to take them)? What of characters using ranged attacks against you - do they provoke?
Tordak 04-10-08, 04:16 PM	Well, the chance is given to you from the opponent after is attack is resolved, the opponent gives you the chance after is attack, so it should still happen after.
bkdubs123 04-10-08, 04:51 PM	The chance is given as soon as he attacks. When he attacks he provokes an attack of opportunity you just can't take that attack yet. Immediately upon having the chance to make an attack of opportunity you can instead take a 5-foot step. Still unclear to me. I see provoking an attack of opportunity as giving the chance to make one, regardless of any delay on taking that attack. I can see however, how one might say that you don't have the chance to make an attack of opportunity until after the foe's attack has resolved even though he has already provoked it as soon as he made an attack roll.
Douglasm 04-10-08, 05:02 PM	The "chance to make an attack of opportunity" occurs when it's time to make the attack roll. If you had the chance to make an AoO before your opponent's attack is resolved, you would be making that AoO right then and there, not after the attack hit.
jaelis 04-10-08, 05:04 PM	To me, it seems pretty clear that you would move after the attack is resolved.
HARLEYDUDE 04-10-08, 05:06 PM	I would say no, your plan wont work. Think of Robliar's Gambit and how it realistically works. (yes i know it is a game and not real life) Your AC drops because you are drawing back for a swing to make a hit of your own, thus opening up your defences and not blocking with your sword or trying to avoid the blow. then you hit. the AoO comes last for a reason. HD
Sildatorak 04-10-08, 06:33 PM	the AoO comes last for a reason. Game balance?
bkdubs123 04-10-08, 06:56 PM	If their attack did not provoke an attack of opportunity you would not have the chance to make an attack of opportunity. That's where my confusion comes from. Since their attack DOES provoke an attack of opportunity you DO have the chance to make an attack of opportunity. Thus you ARE given the chance to make an attack of opportunity as soon as it is provoked. The chance to make an attack of opportunity DOES NOT necessarily correspond with the specific time you are allowed to roll the d20 to actually make the attack.
Sildatorak 04-10-08, 08:33 PM	When you have to argue vehemently against common sense to make a broken combination work, odds are you're wrong. "Chance to make an attack of opportunity" and "provoke an attack of opportunity" are different phrases. You don't have a chance to make that AoO until after your opponent has resolved his or her attack, even though the AoO has been provoked. Further examples that would eliminate any chance of you taking that AoO include becoming stunned, paralyzed, or killed by the provoking attack. The thing to look at here is "instead." Evasive reflexes is replacing your attack of opportunity. Without something to replace, "instead" is meaningless. Ergo, you take the step when you would normally take the AoO.
bkdubs123 04-10-08, 08:56 PM	When you have to argue vehemently against common sense to make a broken combination work, odds are you're wrong. Who's arguing vehemently? Further, what does common sense have to do with the rules of a pen-and-paper roleplaying game? Interpreting rules has nothing to do with common sense... I've already said that I believe looking only at Rules as Written, it appears that the combination is possible. I also said in the very next sentence that, as a DM, I would not allow it. The thing to look at here is "instead." Evasive reflexes is replacing your attack of opportunity. Without something to replace, "instead" is meaningless. Ergo, you take the step when you would normally take the AoO. You're right, instead is the operative word here, however the feat does not say, "Whenever you make an attack of opportunity, you may take an immediate 5-foot step instead." What it does say is, "When an opponent gives you a chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step." I just transcribed directly from the text. SO, when the opponent attacks you, he provokes an attack of opportunity. When you are allowed to take that attack has absolutely NOTHING to do with when that opponent provoked it. As soon as he attacks you, he's provoked an attack of opportunity. Provoking an attack of opportunity directly corresponds with "gives you a chance to make an attack of opportunity," since without provoking an attack of opportunity you AREN'T given a chance to make an attack of opportunity. NOW, combining the effects of both feats I get something like this: Anyone who strikes at you gains a +4 bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against you. In return, they provoke attacks of opportunity from you each time they swing. You can, instead of taking the chance to make an attack of opportunity, immediately take a 5-foot step. Resolve your attack of opportunity, if taken, after your foe's attack.
Sildatorak 04-10-08, 09:17 PM	And I ask, if they kill you outright with their attack, did they give you a chance to make an AoO? There is no possibility of you making an AoO in this scenario, so I think the "provoke=give a chance" line of thinking fails. The most straightforward and balanced reading indicates that the "instead" is saying When an opponent gives you the chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead [of taking that attack] immediately take a 5-foot step.
bkdubs123 04-10-08, 11:35 PM	The most straightforward and balanced reading indicates that the "instead" is saying When an opponent gives you the chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead [of taking that attack] immediately take a 5-foot step. Actually the most straightforward way of reading it is to read it as written which indicates that you take the 5-foot step instead of having the chance to make an AoO. I agree, however, that the most balanced way of reading it is just as you said. I'm not arguing balance. I'm just saying that interpreting rules as written, it is certainly possible to deduce that the combo works. I agree that disallowing them to work together as I've demonstrated they might is unbalancing.
Cartigan 04-11-08, 12:42 AM	Actually the most straightforward way of reading it is to read it as written which indicates that you take the 5-foot step instead of having the chance to make an AoO. A chance is not a part of the rules. Something happens or it doesn't - you can take an AoO or you can't. You immediately take a 5ft step - when you resolve your AoO instead of taking it. No wonder everyone loves ToB, besides the powerful abilities, the rules text are so generally written that it is impossible to tell what rules are actually being used and how they apply thus opening up the way for those who like to read the rules in a manner that always favors them.
jradd777 04-11-08, 02:09 AM	Alright, I've looked through the argument and basically everybody has made very well-thought out points. Congrats on keeping it civil. Here's my take on it, my :twocents:: Robilar's Gambit provokes an AoO if the enemy swings at you. Evasive Reflexes grants an immediate 5' movement instead of an attack. One issue is that an attack made from the benefit of Robilar's Gambit must be made after the resolution of the attack by the foe. The movement from Evasive Reflexes is described as immediate to the chance of an AoO and importantly, is not an attack, therefore does not necessarily have to follow the distinction of being resolved after the attack. Now to address the "necessarily": If that enemy doesn't attack you, they give you absolutely no chance of an AoO (Probability 0 of getting an AoO). The moment they roll an attack that chance to make an AoO becomes a real probability that could, technically, even be quantified (but I'll just call it 1/100, for ease). According to the flaky RAW of Evasive reflexes, you can immediately make a 5' step, because the chance has been given no matter how low that chance may be nor whether it can subsequently be taken away. The argument that if the foe were to drop the target, while strong and commendable, could be considered irrelevant, depending on personal interpretation of "gives a chance." If you feel that the chance is not truly given until the normal AoO could literally be resolved, then, you have the other case, which most people seem to be arguing. There's no RAW for "gives a chance" so the phrase has no rule value. That phrase is the "broken" part of this feat combination. Using all the RAW rules that are given, this, IMHO, does create the possibility for a completely broken feat combination. I really don't think that either side is wrong, per se (like I said, there's no objective definition on which to base the argument concerning "gives a chance"); it comes down to the fact that you have to make a personal choice on what that phrase means. As others have said, I would not use this this way in a game because it takes away any chance of being hit. Where's the game in that? Where's the fun? But, I have to agree that by what RAW one can elicit from the feats, it's possible to make a character who can never be hit (unless by a character with reach or whatever).
Cartigan 04-11-08, 07:33 AM	There's no RAW for "gives a chance" so the phrase has no rule value. That phrase is the "broken" part of this feat combination. Using all the RAW rules that are given, this, IMHO, does create the possibility for a completely broken feat combination. Exactly, the whole book is like this. Errata'ing ToB would require a whole new book.
Sildatorak 04-12-08, 02:31 PM	The problem is stemming from attempting to determine what is meant by "chance" here. 3. a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success. 4. an opportune or favorable time; opportunity: Now is your chance. If we assume the authors are using the first definition, the broken combo is possible. If we assume the authors are using the second one, the combo is not possible. Without a rules definition of "chance" we're not going to get a definitive answer, and I think my previous posts will indicate which side of the argument I fall on.
ff7hero 04-12-08, 11:19 PM	To answer the question posed in the topic title, no. Either a spiked chain user or a Large or bigger creature would thank you for using the combo, provided you weren't on the outer edge of their reach. They would get a bonus to hit and damage, at no cost! Just my 2 cents.
MorandirNailo 04-13-08, 03:21 AM	Seems pretty clear to me; the combo doesn't work. The order of operations for RG works like this: Activate RG. Opponent makes an attack, provoking an AoO. The attack is resolved normally. AoO is taken. ER replaces your normal AoO. Since here you are granted an AoO within the context of the RG feat, you are not exempt from its order of operations. It's a simple substitution. I agree though that the text could be written more clearly (and I love ToB). It's just another example of why WotC should keep several of the CO regulars on the payroll as editors. Mor
jradd777 04-13-08, 05:04 AM	ER replaces your normal AoO. Since here you are granted an AoO within the context of the RG feat, you are not exempt from its order of operations. That's another good way to look at it, however, it's order of operations are only RAW to apply for an attack, giving no additional clauses (as many other feats do that happen to operate with abilities that may be substituted for others). It makes no mention of move actions (or ANY action) taken in place of that attack, it simply assumes that you will either attack or choose not to do so. So, no, taking a move action immediately when being attacked is not technically outside the context of the RG feat, because there are not any parameters set for that. Without RAW, logic, common sense, etc. tells you that no, you can't do it but the rules give no indication, which technically leaves it up for interpretation only. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong about it making sense that you can't do the combo. I'm just saying that the way the rules are written/wording of the feats, in combination, does not seem to disallow the broken combo, especially not in any explicit terms.
Windspear 04-13-08, 08:09 AM	I would say no, your plan wont work. Think of Robliar's Gambit and how it realistically works. (yes i know it is a game and not real life) Your AC drops because you are drawing back for a swing to make a hit of your own, thus opening up your defences and not blocking with your sword or trying to avoid the blow. then you hit. the AoO comes last for a reason. HD Not sure about that. What if while you attack, before you hit, your oponnent spots the opening and strikes. In that case, the combo should work. Besides, after you hit/miss, you can bring your sword back to defend against the next attack...
kalstrand 04-13-08, 01:53 PM	Personally I think the key word is instead. You can use ER instead of making your AoO. RG doesn't allow the AoO until after the enemies attack is resolved.
bkdubs123 04-13-08, 09:09 PM	You DON'T use ER instead of making the AoO though, you use ER instead of taking the chance to make your AoO. You're given the chance as soon as the AoO is provoked, ergo you can immediately move.
Sildatorak 04-13-08, 09:22 PM	double post
Sildatorak 04-13-08, 09:25 PM	Let's play a game of thesaurus. When an opponent gives you the possibility to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step. When an opponent gives you the opportunity to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step. Both of these are valid uses of the word "chance." The first allows a combo that forces opponents to corner you or have reach while being able to threaten adjacently as well because the possibility of you making an attack became non-zero, which is all possibilities ever really are. If you go with the second one, then you aren't allowed to step until it is actually time to roll the dice. Until that point you have no point at which you've actually been able to make the attack. As "chance" is not defined in the rules, the DM is free to pick the interpretation they want. I doubt that outside of the CO boards you probably aren't going to find many who would go with the first interpretation.
TifRhal 04-13-08, 09:58 PM	you might want to look at karmic strike evasive reflex and sidestep they come in about to use a full attack hit you once you get your Aoo wich is a 5 ft then with sidestep you get a free 5 foot step that dose not count agains movement. now your 10ft away if you have a reach weapon you now have them in range for another Aoo next round.
TheCobra 04-13-08, 10:28 PM	To me, it seems pretty clear that you would move after the attack is resolved. When you have to argue vehemently against common sense to make a broken combination work, odds are you're wrong. QFT. The combo is still a decent way to avoid a full attack. And it gives you options. If the first attack brutalizes you, get out of there. If it misses, go for the counter swing. Withdraw once things get hot.
jradd777 04-14-08, 03:43 AM	If you go with the second one, then you aren't allowed to step until it is actually time to roll the dice. Until that point you have no point at which you've actually been able to make the attack. Again, it's not up to the player because those two words are synonyms, although, your argument is more insightful than some of the others. Technically, it's still irrelevant by the rules standard, but not necessarily because of the single word "chance" or even if you use "opportunity." The rules give no "stack" (to use a Magic the Gathering term) within which to frame the possible actions/order of operations. As I said, looking at precedent other feats/abilities/features, when they grant something that changes a normal order of operations, make sure to include fine print concerning replacements (such as variants/sub levels granting abilities that still count to meet pre-requisites for particular PrC's, if those were meant for the previous ability, etc). This combination leaves out that part, which is important, for the fact that the replacement is not necessarily held under the restriction of the new order of operations that an "attack" would necessarily be held under because it is not an attack. It has less to do with the simple word "chance" than your argument is giving it credit for. Although, on the other hand, the synonym "opportunity" is enticing because it does have a rules equivalent and affords a common sense substitution of "move of opportunity." Again, though, because the two types of action are, in fact, completely separate, anyone can easily argue that such a substitution is too much of an assumption in meaning. However, your final judgment is completely correct. In the end, it must come down to interpretation and/or making some assumption based on other rules, because there is no rule which definitively solves the problem. Sorry, that I keep harping on things that you're saying too. It's just that yours is the better of the arguments, IMO. It is obvious what your stance is, so I like to make sure another point of view is well represented. Since it does seem that either could be technically correct.
narack 04-14-08, 08:29 AM	That combo is only good if the enemy close at you and take a full round attack. the first attack have good chance to hit but when it resolve you immediately have the AoO before the second attack land so you 5' step and he can't do anything else. It's a good life saving combo for mages/thiefs. Not totally useless vs 1 attack you can move a bit back so you can get away without AoO on yourself for the enemy.
Midnight_v 04-14-08, 10:33 AM	I wanted to reiterate that this may not work with Robilars but does work with karmic strike I'm told. (at least Raw) because it doesn't have the restiction of after the attack resolve. This is no more broken that the wizard with abrupt jaunt though. Or the shadowcaster with "flicker" :rolleyes: Can't touch this....
Cartigan 04-14-08, 11:47 AM	I wanted to reiterate that this may not work with Robilars but does work with karmic strike I'm told. (at least Raw) because it doesn't have the restiction of after the attack resolve. This is no more broken that the wizard with abrupt jaunt though. Or the shadowcaster with "flicker" :rolleyes: Can't touch this.... Casting the spell in threat range would provoke normally.
risner 04-14-08, 01:00 PM	BBG decides to try and attack me. I use both feats at the same time and am able to move the 5ft needed to get out of his attack range without being hit. So he is left with 5ft between us and has wasted his round. Is this right? No for two reasons. 1) You get AoO after the event happens. 2) You can't usually gain something from something happening (the AoO) then give it up to gain something else (the 5ft step) making the something not happen (you lose the AoO which loses you the 5ft step.)
Midnight_v 04-14-08, 10:31 PM	Casting the spell in threat range would provoke normally. Except immediate actions/spell don't provoke. . .
TifRhal 04-15-08, 02:47 PM	add Melee Evasion +Robilar's gambit + Evasive reflexes+ sidestep sample your bab is 14 and ac is 20 the guy trying to cut you is bab 10 he rolls a 12 on the dice all totals added he gets say 22 now you roll your attack and add bab say you get a 16 and your 14 now your ac is 30 and then you get your actions be it step out of the way or smash the guys head in its up to you at the end you still have the option of the five foot step thanks to sidestep.
ToastedAmphibian 04-15-08, 04:11 PM	No for two reasons. 1) You get AoO after the event happens. 2) You can't usually gain something from something happening (the AoO) then give it up to gain something else (the 5ft step) making the something not happen (you lose the AoO which loses you the 5ft step.) Really? I generally thought that was one of the best uses of an AoO. By this reasoning, noone can ever die from provoking an AoO. Character A: Ow he really hit me hard with that sword, ill try to grapple him. Character B: Ok, ill take my attack of opportunity. I hit you for 23 dmg. Character A: Ok, now im dead. That means i couldnt have attacked you, so you couldnt make an AoO in response to my attack,b ecause i never made it, because i died. Thus you never hit me and im still alive! :confused:
risner 04-16-08, 01:44 AM	By this reasoning, noone can ever die from provoking an AoO. :confused: /boggle Not the same scenario.
Tordak 04-16-08, 10:46 AM	Really? I generally thought that was one of the best uses of an AoO. By this reasoning, noone can ever die from provoking an AoO. Character A: Ow he really hit me hard with that sword, ill try to grapple him. Character B: Ok, ill take my attack of opportunity. I hit you for 23 dmg. Character A: Ok, now im dead. That means i couldnt have attacked you, so you couldnt make an AoO in response to my attack,b ecause i never made it, because i died. Thus you never hit me and im still alive! :confused: This is either really funny (sorry if I didn't get it), or so totally flawed...
Xiuhcoatl 04-16-08, 11:50 AM	I have to say, thematically it works nicely. Imagine the 'master' being attacked by the 'apprentice' ... dodging and taking a step back with every swing of his student, while he lectures on how he is not strong enough yet.
ToastedAmphibian 04-16-08, 11:32 PM	This is either really funny (sorry if I didn't get it), or so totally flawed... Yes, it was a joke. I was just poking a little fun at rinsers slightly unfortunate wording in the bolded part of his post @ Rinser: Yes i know its not the same scenario, but the reasoning of: A causes B B = C C stops A thus B dosnt exist Well, it kinda go directly aginst the whole premis of how an attack of opportunity works. Your 1st point was absolutly correct though, and easily enough to shoot down the combo. A less comical example would be if: A=leaving a threatened square B=an Attack of Opportunity C=Trip Leaving a threatened square causes an attack of opportunity an attack of opportunity is equal to a trip a trip stops the leaving of a threatened square thefore the leaving of a threatened square dosnt happen, and the attack of opportunity is never triggered. If the AoO didnt happen, then nothing is stopping me from moving. So i leave the square..... repeat till the trip attempt fails! ) You can't usually gain something(AoO) from something happening (X leaves a threatened square)(the AoO) then give it up to gain something else(A trip Attempt) (the 5ft step) making the something (The movment) not happen (you lose the AoO which loses you the(trip) 5ft step.) Anyways..... sorry for any confusion my shakey sense of humor may have caused.
Midnight_v 04-18-08, 06:53 PM	Yes, it was a joke. I was just poking a little fun at rinsers slightly unfortunate wording in the bolded part of his post @ Rinser: Yes i know its not the same scenario, but the reasoning of: A causes B B = C C stops A thus B dosnt exist Well, it kinda go directly aginst the whole premis of how an attack of opportunity works. Your 1st point was absolutly correct though, and easily enough to shoot down the combo. A less comical example would be if: A=leaving a threatened square B=an Attack of Opportunity C=Trip Leaving a threatened square causes an attack of opportunity an attack of opportunity is equal to a trip a trip stops the leaving of a threatened square thefore the leaving of a threatened square dosnt happen, and the attack of opportunity is never triggered. If the AoO didnt happen, then nothing is stopping me from moving. So i leave the square..... repeat till the trip attempt fails! Anyways..... sorry for any confusion my shakey sense of humor may have caused. I always though the aao's interupt what caused them. Which cept robilars but since karmic doesn't have the restriction you should be able to cut off attack imho
Merestil Haye 04-19-08, 06:03 AM	I always though the aao's interupt what caused them. Which cept robilars but since karmic doesn't have the restriction you should be able to cut off attack imhoKarmic Strike lets you take an AoO if you have been hit. "Hit" in D&D means "a successful attack roll." In other words, with Karmic Strike you cannot take the AoO until you know you have been hit. The hit is in the past when you get your AoO. Since it has already happened, you cannot negate it with the AoO.