Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Erimanto 12-02-05, 03:01 PM	Hello everyone. I have a doubt; in a combat, how do we treat attacks of opportunity? can one attack of opportunity start a chain reaction? for example, if I have two rows of PC's and NPC's; and they theaten each others areas; if one benefits from one attack of oportunity, the others start benefiting , like a chain reaction, of several attacks of opportunity. Do You understand my doubt? can someon answer me? The core rulebook I is not very clear in this point. Thanks everyone. Good D&D gaming. Erimanto
PenderGrass 12-02-05, 03:10 PM	AoOs do not "start chain reactions" - beyond that, I understand little of what you are saying. Sorry. :dragon: ****
Erimanto 12-02-05, 03:19 PM	Hi Pendergrass. thanks for your answer. Sorry if i do not understand DM activity a lot, like some do, but it is a doubt i have. if while moving or acting in a threatened area, i give a chance for other to attack me, as an attack of opportunity, why can't others benefit from the first attack of opportunity if it is in a threatend area? if You ~still don't understand. don't waste your time thinking much about it. bye play hard
Eraleas 12-02-05, 03:24 PM	Well, as far as I know, you do not provoke AoO when you Attack (either as an AoO or normally) or else the game would have no actual "rounds". So since you can't move during your AoO, you do no provoke an AoO.
Ibbins 12-02-05, 03:35 PM	I'm pretty sure this just wasn't an issue in core rules, so they never addressed it. There was no way for an Attack, and thus an AoO, to provoke another AoO. With new rules coming in we have at least 1 way to do so now: Karmic Strike(from CW). As a DM, I'd rule that an AoO can't provoke another AoO, otherwise you'd have 2 karmic-striking lvl 1 fighters facing off and attacking eachother 5 times each round.
grandaustino 12-02-05, 03:38 PM	AoO's in fact, with one minor exeption, can only be made by weapons that do not provoke AoO's, and most critters only get one AoO per round. I think you need to check your rules on Attacks of Opportunity.
Ogmug 12-02-05, 03:43 PM	still trying to understand what it is you want. player a does something that causes an AO to occur. Lets call it "standing up" as this is a standard action that does cause an AO Orc 1 Orc 2 Player A Orc 3 In this case, all three orcs would have an attack of opportunity against player A. If a player leaves a threatened square, then an attack of opportunity can occur. Below, pretend player a is running to attack orc 1 and passes by orc 2 to do so. Player A does not have mobility, or anything else like such. Orc 2 player A start: player a end: Orc 1 In this instance, Player A invokes an attack of opportunity from Orc 2, but not Orc1 (
Ogmug 12-02-05, 03:48 PM	Ah, the question is whehter one AO can trigger an AO from another person? not really. An AO occurs before the action that triggers it and are limited to : An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack Often the acts of casting, etc require a standard action, and do not fall into the category of "single melee attack".
Force 12-02-05, 03:59 PM	If howerver you use you single attack as a trip attempt or a sunder, you do provoke another AoO. I would rule that one AoO can thus provoke another AoO.
PenderGrass 12-02-05, 04:09 PM	If howerver you use you single attack as a trip attempt or a sunder, you do provoke another AoO. I would rule that one AoO can thus provoke another AoO. So, if you have someone provoke an AoO. The opponent takes the AoO and tries an untrained Trip manuever and thus provokes an AoO. So, the original AoO provoker now gets an AoO, right? Okay, now what if he attempts an untrained Trip? Then back and forth, to inifinity, right? No. I don't think so. I think this has been addressed by the Sage and if I remember correctly this type of insanity is forbidden. :dragon: ****
RKane909 12-02-05, 04:36 PM	Say character "A" is a wizard who just cast shocking grasp and is holding the charge waiting to use it. And character "B" is a fighter who is wounded and is facing off against character "A". Char A: Casts shocking grasp and moves adjacent to Char B. Char B: Pulls a cure potion from his belt and attempts to drink it(Provokes AoO) Char A(AoO): Discharges his shocking grasp spell with a melee touch attack Now, does discharging that melee touch attack spell provoke an AoO in turn. I say it doesn't. Why? Because, Char B would, realistically, have to stop the motion of drinking the potion(the motion that provides Char A with the opportunity to attack) in order to make his own AoO. But when Char B has finished with his AoO he would still have to drink his potion, which means completely starting the drinking motion from the beggining(because he had to break it off to attack) and thereby provoking another AoO. If both Char A and B had a high dex and combat reflexes and Char A is fighting unarmed(without improved unarmed strike feat) they would get opportunity after opportunity to attack each other. So, I say that when a character takes and action that provokes an AoO all combatants in position to attack make their initial AoO and the original character then completes their action if possible and it then becomes the turn of the next character in the initiative.
Aladdar 12-02-05, 04:37 PM	The thought behind attacks of opportunity was that someone did something which let their guard down enough for you to hit them. The concept is that there are several swings going back and forth within a round not just the one you roll on, if someone runs away, thus turning their back on you then you've got a better chance of striking. It's not perfect, but it's about as close as you can get.
Chobemaster 12-02-05, 04:54 PM	Say character "A" is a wizard who just cast shocking grasp and is holding the charge waiting to use it. And character "B" is a fighter who is wounded and is facing off against character "A". Char A: Casts shocking grasp and moves adjacent to Char B. Char B: Pulls a cure potion from his belt and attempts to drink it(Provokes AoO) Char A(AoO): Discharges his shocking grasp spell with a melee touch attack Now, does discharging that melee touch attack spell provoke an AoO in turn. I say it doesn't. Why? Because, Char B would, realistically, have to stop the motion of drinking the potion(the motion that provides Char A with the opportunity to attack) in order to make his own AoO. But when Char B has finished with his AoO he would still have to drink his potion, which means completely starting the drinking motion from the beggining(because he had to break it off to attack) and thereby provoking another AoO. If both Char A and B had a high dex and combat reflexes and Char A is fighting unarmed(without improved unarmed strike feat) they would get opportunity after opportunity to attack each other. So, I say that when a character takes and action that provokes an AoO all combatants in position to attack make their initial AoO and the original character then completes their action if possible and it then becomes the turn of the next character in the initiative. Discharging a spell effect with an "unarmed" attack doesn't provoke anyway, its considered to be an armed attack...so your example arrives at the right conclusion for the wrong (or unnecessary, really) reason.
Pellanor 12-02-05, 05:12 PM	So, if you have someone provoke an AoO. The opponent takes the AoO and tries an untrained Trip manuever and thus provokes an AoO. So, the original AoO provoker now gets an AoO, right? Okay, now what if he attempts an untrained Trip? Then back and forth, to inifinity, right? No. I don't think so. I think this has been addressed by the Sage and if I remember correctly this type of insanity is forbidden. :dragon: ****You remeber sortof correctly. The sage did address this, but it is not forbidden. If I attempt an to trip you, without having Improved Trip, I provoke an AoO. If, for your AoO you attempt to sunder my weapon, without Improved Sunder, then you provoke an AoO. If I use my AoO to kick you, and don't have improved unarmed stike, I provoke a Second AoO. If you HAVE COMBAT REFLEXES, or something else that allows you to make multiple AoOs, you may now get a second AoO. If you use it to attempt to trip me, without having Improved Trip, you provoke and AoO. If I HAVE COMBAT REFLEXES, or something else that allows me to make multiple AoOs, I can now take my AoO. If I use it to attempt to trip you, then I provoke another AoO. This continues until somebody uses the max number of AoOs for a round. However if we were both epic level, and were able to make an infinte number of AoOs (or do we need to be deities for that?), then we could keep this going forever, if we so chose. At any point one of us could choose to simply not take out AoO, or use an action (suck as attacking) that doesn't provoke an AoO. edit: behold, the quote from the FAQIs it possible for an attack of opportunity to provoke an attack of opportunity? For example, a fighter attempts to trip a cleric. The cleric chooses to make a sunder attack against the fighter’s weapon as his attack of opportunity. Does the sunder attack then provoke an attack of opportunity from the fighter? Yes. An attack of opportunity is adjudicated just like any other attack, and it is subject to the same rules (including provoking additional attacks of opportunity). This can lead to odd situations where as the reason for the original action no longer exists. If this starts to confuse you, just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every maneuver. Even the “sequential” nature of D&D combat—I make my attacks, then you make your attacks, then I make my attacks, and so forth—is an artificial creation used to keep combat moving quickly. Using the example you provide, the fighter is indeed allowed to make an attack of opportunity against the cleric. (This attack could, in turn, provoke yet another attack of opportunity from the cleric, but the cleric could make such an attack only if he were allowed more than one attack of opportunity in a single round.) These attacks are performed in a “Last In, First Out” sequence. The last attack of opportunity declared is the first one resolved, with the remaining attacks resolved in reverse order of their declaration, assuming the character can still make the attack. If the fighter drops the cleric with his attack of opportunity, the rest of the attacks in the sequence—including the cleric’s attack of opportunity and the fighter’s original trip attack—do not occur. The actions are still “spent,” however— the fighter doesn’t get to use that original attack on some other target (although if he has other attacks remaining he may take them as normal).
janusthinker 12-02-05, 05:13 PM	I believe I saw this issue addressed in Dragon once (if I am understanding the question correctly). Some special attacks do provoke attacks of opportunity and you can use them as regular attacks, such as grappling, sundering, or disarming. Also unarmed strikes without the proper feat, now that I notice it in previous posts.... If you attempt to disarm as an attack of opportunity, for example, the question becomes, do you have a chain of attacks of opportunity? The column in Dragon that answers such questions said yes, so such an example would resolve this way: 1) Opponent provokes an attack of opportunity. 2) You use the attack of opportunity to attempt to disarm. This provokes an attack of opportunity (assuming you don't have Improved Disarm). 3) Opponent attacks you with his attack of opportunity. 4) Resolve the disarm attempt (assuming it isn't cancelled by you taking damage). 5) Opponent concludes/continues whatever action he performed to provoke the original attack of opportunity. The column indicated (as I recall) that, given the right mix of circumstances, such as either combatant having Combat Reflexes or repeated attempts to disarm, grapple, what have you used as attacks, this could continue infinitely. It doesn't make much sense in terms of equating it to realism, but it makes sense within the rules. As a DM, I'd say that for such a circumstance to arise, you'd have to have a player who hates you, and you'd have to be bitter enough to respond in kind, grinding the game to a halt. :tongue: If I am totally misunderstanding the question, and you are asking if a single action can provoke several attacks of opportunity from enemies surrounding you, then the answer is yes. Ogmug illustrated that the way I was about to until I noticed he'd done it already. Go, Ogmug!
RKane909 12-02-05, 06:44 PM	Discharging a spell effect with an "unarmed" attack doesn't provoke anyway, its considered to be an armed attack...so your example arrives at the right conclusion for the wrong (or unnecessary, really) reason. You're right :embarrass and we've been doing it wrong this whole time. Whoops!!!