Post/Author/DateTime	Post
itrainedyoda 02-01-06, 03:34 PM	This question has probably been posed before in one format or another, but I'm coming from a rules-casual background to a rules-lawyer campaign and I need some input. Here's my attack of opportunity question: I'm a cleric standing on a river barge adjacent to the water. On the barge in a square I threaten is a lacedon ghoul. I successfully turn the ghoul on my turn and it must flee. On its turn in the same round the DM announces the ghoul is jumping off the barge into the water. He asks me if I want to make an AoO & I say yes, even though I know it will break the turning. When I hit the ghoul that's leaving my threaten area, the DM states that it doesn't jump into the water now and instead attacks me. I thought the AoO was triggered when the target moves out of the area of threat. If the next square was water, can the target change its mind in mid-air and attack instead? Who's right? Does it make sense to you, or is it just the way the rules work?
Rotgiest 02-01-06, 03:44 PM	the DM could be thinking that the goul started to turn around and you attacked it before it jumped and maybe before it was even fully turned around. Not that I agree with that I think your DM was just being mean, next time state that you will wait to take you OOA until the goul has one foot over the edge and is started down. I personly hate it when DM's get overly picky and mirco DM everything kind of takes the fun out of it.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-01-06, 03:48 PM	If the result of the AoO does not make the action impossible, the action is still performed. In this case, the ghoul has to move at least five feet away from you, though it may not now have to move the entire distance as it is not fleeing. Unless you tripped it or something similar.
Feriin 02-01-06, 03:53 PM	You are right. You could let it go then the next time you do something that gets you killed backtrack like the DM did. Him doing that is no different from someoen saying they are opening a chest and the dm says roll a save, then the person saying I leave the chest alone. It would tick him off if a player did that. So let it go and do this to him, If he insists you cheated tell him he is a hipocrit(sp?).
Bruunwald 02-01-06, 03:57 PM	There are a couple of things your DM did incorrectly. Firstly, when you turned the ghoul it should have fled in the quickest route away from you (in the opposite direction from you). If that route was blocked, it should have simply cowered. Jumping off the barge into the water might or might not count as the quickest route, but it does not sound like fleeing from you. It sounds like walking past you. The fleeing is a withdrawal, so you don't get an AoO against it when it leaves the first threatened square. Nor do you immediately get one if it cowers. Cowering does give you benefits when you attack during your turn. If, at that time, you attacked the ghoul, then yes, your turning attempt would have ended and the ghoul could have attacked you... Now barring all of this, and assuming the DM sees jumping off the barge as "the quickest route available" to the ghoul to flee your divine might, there's still the problem of how the AoO came up. It came up when the ghoul left the threatened square. That is to say, when it left the barge. Remember that the AoO interrupts the action. It does not change the action the ghoul is attempting. In other words, the ghoul was in the process of leaping into the water. To do that, he had to be leaving the threatened square. The AoO works by allowing you the attack - interrupting the ghoul's movement - after which, the ghoul must finish his action (if he can). Since his action was leaping into the water, he had to finish that. The ghoul does not get to hang weightless in the air, waiting on whether or not he is attacked by you to determine if he then somehow levitates back on to the barge to take his now unhindered attack. It breaks down thus: 1. Your standard action: turning the ghoul. Your turn ends. 2. The ghoul's turn: His only possible response: fleeing from you (a move action to jump off into the water). --interrupted by-- Your attack of opportunity: swinging at the ghoul (who could only be falling into the water, now that he's left the last square at the edge of the barge). 3. Finishing the ghoul's turn: since he threatened an AoO he must have left the square and since he left the threatened square he must be falling and so cannot change his mind and attack. 4. An angry ghoul in the water who is no longer afraid of you. Now, if both of you were on stable ground, and you had tried to trip the ghoul as it left its square, it could decide to trip you instead. But that's a special action. Otherwise, the ghoul does not get to change its decision to withdraw in mid-withdrawal, and certainly not while hanging in mid-air.
Murrdox 02-01-06, 04:06 PM	Wow! I was going to post a response, but Bruunwald hit the metaphysical nail on the head. 1) It's uncertain whether a turned ghoul would jump off a barge when turned, instead of cowering. 2) You shouldn't have gotten an attack of opportunity in the first place even if it had fled. 3) If you DID get an attack of opportunity, it still would have jumped off the boat, unless you used your AoO to trip it, or otherwise prevent it from jumping. +2 points to Bruunwald.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-01-06, 04:07 PM	Bruun, good post but you are wrong about a few things. I will highlight only those. So anything not highlighted means I agree with you. Here goes. The fleeing is a withdrawal, so you don't get an AoO against it when it leaves the first threatened square. Nor do you immediately get one if it cowers. Withdraw and flee are two different actions. A strategic withdrawal does not provoke on the first square, as you describe, but a flee (which is a full round movement action usually.... getting to that....) means they are going to be moving the entire round, which does not use the withdraw combat option, so provokes. Also, jumping provokes as withdraw rules do not allow such special movement. Now, when the AoO breaks the flee action, the rule of the DMG that says that you can change an intended action mid-round, like shortening a full run so that you can now take a standard action kicks in and allows the ghoul a standard action. In which case I would as a DM probably use the remaining standard action to move back next to the player. Now, if both of you were on stable ground, and you had tried to trip the ghoul as it left its square, it could decide to trip you instead. But that's a special action. Otherwise, the ghoul does not get to change its decision to withdraw in mid-withdrawal, and certainly not while hanging in mid-air. Actually an AoO trip cannot provoke the reciprocal AoO. You cannot take AoOs as response to an AoO. I assume that you know this and simply forgot. If you don't agree I will look up the specific rules in order to clarify. Just say the word and it's yours. The logic about reverse tripping in mid air does not apply however, as like you siad, the AoO happens before he even begins to jump, or right as he begins. If the rules allowed reciprocal AoOs then he would have been allowed the AoO in this case, even though after the AoO he would then be in mid-air.
Callista 02-01-06, 04:33 PM	I don't see why a lacedon wouldn't have jumped--they are, after all, aquatic ghouls; and they are at home in the water. Jumping into the water would be the decision I'd have it make, too. That said, I don't think you should have gotten an attack of opportunity, as it was using a Withdraw action.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-01-06, 04:42 PM	Effect and Duration of Turning: Turned undead flee from you by the best and fastest means available to them. They flee for 10 rounds (1 minute). If they cannot flee, they cower (giving any attack rolls against them a +2 bonus). If you approach within 10 feet of them, however, they overcome being turned and act normally. (You can stand within 10 feet without breaking the turning effect—you just can’t approach them.) You can attack them with ranged attacks (from at least 10 feet away), and others can attack them in any fashion, without breaking the turning effect. Withdraw Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. (Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded.) You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw. If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal. You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed. Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely. Restricted Withdraw: If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed (rather than up to double your speed). Run You can run as a full-round action. (If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step.) When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if you’re in heavy armor). You lose any Dexterity bonus to AC unless you have the Run feat You can run for a number of rounds equal to your Constitution score, but after that you must make a DC 10 Constitution check to continue running. You must check again each round in which you continue to run, and the DC of this check increases by 1 for each check you have made. When you fail this check, you must stop running. A character who has run to his limit must rest for 1 minute (10 rounds) before running again. During a rest period, a character can move no faster than a normal move action. You can’t run across difficult terrain or if you can’t see where you’re going. A run represents a speed of about 12 miles per hour for an unencumbered human. A turned creature runs if it is able, which a ghoul is able.
Bruunwald 02-01-06, 06:58 PM	Now, when the AoO breaks the flee action, the rule of the DMG that says that you can change an intended action mid-round, like shortening a full run so that you can now take a standard action kicks in and allows the ghoul a standard action. In which case I would as a DM probably use the remaining standard action to move back next to the player. The logic about reverse tripping in mid air does not apply however, as like you siad, the AoO happens before he even begins to jump, or right as he begins. If the rules allowed reciprocal AoOs then he would have been allowed the AoO in this case, even though after the AoO he would then be in mid-air. I think you're taking too broad a view of the change-action rule, and I also think you're missing the part where leaving the original square left no solid ground beneath the ghoul's feet. Working this from back to front, rules are fine and good, but they should not take the place of reality. Put the situation in context. Even barring the flee-versus-withdraw, the ghoul provokes the AoO as he's leaving the threatened square. Thus, as the AoO is coming, he is standing on nothing, or has one foot over nothing. He can't turn around while standing on nothing and he can't expect a standard action while balancing half his body weight over a river. Not without consequences. At the very least, the DM should have made a Balance check or should have forced a penalty on the ghoul's subsequent attack. As it stands, it is pretty close to obvious that this was a bait-and-switch, not on the part of the ghoul, but on the part of the DM. "Well, he turned my ghoul, so I'm gonna temp him with an AoO after announcing that the ghoul was stepping into the river -- that'll teach him!" Getting to the other point, if we were to take such a broad view of that rule, we could just as easily allow a spellcaster to decide to attack with his melee weapon when his Concentration was broken from casting a spell. You can't trade any action for any other action. Ask yourself if shortening a full run to take a standard action is viable if you've moved all but 5 feet of your run speed? Obviously, it is not. So it has to be up to the DM to adjudicate what makes a reasonable trade. You have to put it into context here. The ghoul is turned. He has to flee. He is standing in a square at the edge of the boat. He steps off the boat, the PC takes a swing at him as he's falling. Or even as he's jumping. It's the same thing: the ghoul's feet are not on the ground at the time the AoO occurs. The move action is the description of him leaving the square. That's where reality takes precedent. If the ghoul were walking on a sidewalk into another square of sidewalk it would be different. He was not. Because the description of his jump is what indicated his "leaving" the square. Binding oneself so tightly to the letter of a rule is going to blind one to the real rules... like gravity. Now, imagine (as you probably will anyway) that everything I said means nothing to you. There's one more thing to consider: how quickly does any character react? Do people gearing up to jump for their lives really instantly think of retaliation when an AoO occurs? Moreoever, does an undead creature fleeing for its existence from divine power immediately react to a hit with the thought, "Huh... that guy hit me. I'm not scared of him anymore. Now watch me stop fleeing for my life in less than a nanosecond and sneer lustily as I retaliate." No. The DM might plan that. But it's metagaming. The reasonable assumption is that a ghoul fleeing from a cleric, who is jumping as his action, follows through with the jump in the tiny instant that an AoO occurs. Again, reality must sadly interfere. Otherwise, you get people posting here, asking whether or not the ruling was Kosher, and most of us agreeing with him that it was not. Like... well, guess what? Like this thread.
Nom 02-01-06, 08:32 PM	Even if we allow the ghoul to abort his action in the square where he was attacked, he still has declared a full move (either Run or Withdraw - I say Withdraw but that leaves AoO issues) and thus cannot do anything else; he has no spare actions that turn.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-02-06, 01:57 AM	I think you're taking too broad a view of the change-action rule, and I also think you're missing the part where leaving the original square left no solid ground beneath the ghoul's feet. No, I am neither. Ill get to each later on with specific examples Working this from back to front, rules are fine and good, but they should not take the place of reality. Not true. When you ascribe to a play method you choose whether you are going to use reality and ad-hoc seat-of-the-pants rules, in which case rules mean very little and we wouldn't have this debate or you choose to play it by an agreed set of rules which is usually the books plus any agreed to house-rules. Here, we are debating the rules, not real life. You can use real-life to help you find a rule, but overall, the rules win, not real life. Put the situation in context. Even barring the flee-versus-withdraw, the ghoul provokes the AoO as he's leaving the threatened square. Thus, as the AoO is coming, he is standing on nothing, or has one foot over nothing. He can't turn around while standing on nothing and he can't expect a standard action while balancing half his body weight over a river. Not without consequences. Also not true. The AoO comes before the action is taken, not after the action is partially taken. Call it a sixth sense if you will. I call it the moment before you do something, you stop looking at your opponent and focusing on dodging their blows, so they get a free pot shot in on you. The ghoul has not yet jumped, but his conscious (if ghouls have a conscous) has committed to the action already. At the very least, the DM should have made a Balance check or should have forced a penalty on the ghoul's subsequent attack. As it stands, it is pretty close to obvious that this was a bait-and-switch, not on the part of the ghoul, but on the part of the DM. "Well, he turned my ghoul, so I'm gonna temp him with an AoO after announcing that the ghoul was stepping into the river -- that'll teach him!" You are talking real life again. The rules require no such check. Getting to the other point, if we were to take such a broad view of that rule, we could just as easily allow a spellcaster to decide to attack with his melee weapon when his Concentration was broken from casting a spell. You can't trade any action for any other action. Ask yourself if shortening a full run to take a standard action is viable if you've moved all but 5 feet of your run speed? Obviously, it is not. So it has to be up to the DM to adjudicate what makes a reasonable trade. Tsk tsk. Don't change the problem. You didn't make apples in to different apples here, you made them in to oranges. Here Ill take each in turn. Wizard and dagger: His spell being aborted used his standard action as that was his declared standard action. Now, if the spell on the other hand was a full-round spell, such as Summon Monster or a sorcerer casting a meta-magic enhanced spell, then at interruption, they can choose to move their entire movement, even though had the spell been allowed to complete, five feet would have been their entire movement. Second example: If you stop just short of five feet of quadruple speed then you moved to far to declare it anything else. But if you stopped five feet short of double speed then sure you could decide to make it a withdraw and then take your standard action. And if that provoked an AoO from the original square because you initially decided to run instead of withdraw then it sucks to be you. The rule does state that you cannot undo a consequence of the former action that has already occurred. You have to put it into context here. The ghoul is turned. He has to flee. He is standing in a square at the edge of the boat. He steps off the boat, the PC takes a swing at him as he's falling. Or even as he's jumping. It's the same thing: the ghoul's feet are not on the ground at the time the AoO occurs. The move action is the description of him leaving the square. That's where reality takes precedent. Nope, see above. He hasn't even started to turn, as far as he has gotten is commiting to the action. That's all. If the ghoul were walking on a sidewalk into another square of sidewalk it would be different. He was not. Because the description of his jump is what indicated his "leaving" the square. Binding oneself so tightly to the letter of a rule is going to blind one to the real rules... like gravity. Yep. but that doesn't change anything. See above. He has not left the square yet. Now, imagine (as you probably will anyway) that everything I said means nothing to you. If it meant nothing I wouldn't have replied. Please, do try to show some respect here for the time I have taken to respond. There's one more thing to consider: how quickly does any character react? Do people gearing up to jump for their lives really instantly think of retaliation when an AoO occurs? They react at the speed of the rules. So yes, they could reasonably do so if the rules allowed it. But the rules don't. Moreoever, does an undead creature fleeing for its existence from divine power immediately react to a hit with the thought, "Huh... that guy hit me. I'm not scared of him anymore. Now watch me stop fleeing for my life in less than a nanosecond and sneer lustily as I retaliate." I don't see why not. In fact, undead are usually not capable of feeling fear. Turning them is pretty much the only instance they do. Most undead follow one order and one order only to the letter. Eat the good guys. The second they are no longer fleeing, they are not thinking 'gee he hurt me bad'. They are thinking 'eat the good guy'. No. The DM might plan that. But it's metagaming. The reasonable assumption is that a ghoul fleeing from a cleric, who is jumping as his action, follows through with the jump in the tiny instant that an AoO occurs. No, that logic is someone trying to throw out rules for real life. Sometimes, the rules have to win. If you don't like it, change the rules, but that's a house rule and not the rules as written. Again, reality must sadly interfere. Otherwise, you get people posting here, asking whether or not the ruling was Kosher, and most of us agreeing with him that it was not. Like... well, guess what? Like this thread. No it musn't. Which is why you get people like me to give you the rules when you attempt to bend reality in to them. They are a mold. They are a mold for a gaming system. They are not a mold for reality. They may have started with reality is a base and as an ideal, but not always do they have to follow reality. They are rules. Even if we allow the ghoul to abort his action in the square where he was attacked, he still has declared a full move (either Run or Withdraw - I say Withdraw but that leaves AoO issues) and thus cannot do anything else; he has no spare actions that turn. Not true actually. The manual uses this specific example. Later I will provide the book and page number for you to look it up, but alas I dont have them with me at present. It is not SRD however, so I cannot quote it online. (Least I think its not).
Ogmug 02-02-06, 12:19 PM	Actually an AoO trip cannot provoke the reciprocal AoO. You cannot take AoOs as response to an AoO. I assume that you know this and simply forgot. If you don't agree I will look up the specific rules in order to clarify. Just say the word and it's yours. Sorry Mit, but you are wrong in this case: Is 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).
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-02-06, 12:26 PM	Then that's been Sage'd because there was an older Sage that went in to detail saying you could not. Interesting.... Where is that source? EDIT: I see you listed FAQ. That means it was indeed Sage'd. Looking up the latest FAQ now. At any rate, it then means that you have to be weary of using Trip as an AoO maneuver. Even against ghouls about to jump off a boat... =)
Ogmug 02-02-06, 12:52 PM	Page 35 of the faq dated 1/26/06. However I think this has been in since at least november.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-02-06, 12:53 PM	I haven't looked it up recently. Bad me. Bad me! Correcting that now =)
Murrdox 02-02-06, 01:29 PM	Bruun is technically speaking incorrect that the ghoul is "in mid air" and thus cannot choose NOT to flee when he takes the attack of opportunity, thus un-turning him. The AoO does happen BEFORE he leaves the square, so the Ghoul has not jumped yet. However, after the attack of opportunity, assuming he survived, and was not tripped to remain in the square he is in, the Ghoul moves at least 5 feet away from the attacker. He is no longer turned, but since that 5 feet takes him over the edge of the galley, he plunges down into the water. After he's been attacked, the Ghoul can't decide NOT to leave the square. Just like a Wizard who suffered an AoO due to casting a spell and had it disrupted can't choose NOT to cast the spell. The ghoul does not have to FLEE anymore... he uses a move action to move those 5'. He can take another standard action after he plunges into the water. If he likes, he could make a climb check to start clawing his way back onto the galley.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-02-06, 01:33 PM	=) Thanks for the backup Murr.
itrainedyoda 02-02-06, 04:32 PM	Thanks to all who replied. I feel like I have an even better grasp of the rules now that the titans-of-rules-lawyers have clashed. In a way I'm just glad to be alive. I didn't argue (much) with the DM after he made this call, and in the future I may not choose to argue the point because it bogs down the game. Sometimes it is better to know you're right and just let it slide. I feel vindicated. Of course, in-character I don't think I can *not* swing at the undead and allow it to prey on other travelers in the future.
Mit Ratten Lebt 02-02-06, 04:40 PM	The best way is to state that you disagree, let him make a call then go with it. If he insists he is right, ask here and if we side with you, the print it out and bring it back with you next time.
Nom 02-02-06, 10:40 PM	Not true actually. The manual uses this specific example. Later I will provide the book and page number for you to look it up, but alas I dont have them with me at present. It is not SRD however, so I cannot quote it online. (Least I think its not).Did you find this example? I went through the PH, DMG and DMG II and saw no similar example or other rules on adjudicating AoOs. Are you sure you're not getting it mixed up with the rules for adjudicating the ready action?