I recently learned that you can attempt certain combat maneuvers (disarm, trip, and sunder) in place of an attack of opportunity; this led me to ask myself the next dumb question:
Lets say that, in place of my attack of opportunity, I attempt to disarm/trip/sunder a target who is moving out of a square I'm threatening and I don't have the proper Improved Feat. Does my disarm/trip/sunder attempt provoke an attack of opportunity from my target?
I know I may be overthinking this and the answer is quite probably "no, your attempt doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity even if you don't have the proper Improved Feat", but still I would love to read what you guys think about this.
Thanks in advance.
Yes it does, as long as all other conditions of an attack of oportunity are met.
yeah, there can be a huge AoO chain if both have a lot of AoO available.
Yup. Provokes as normal.
Yes it does, as long as all other conditions of an attack of oportunity are met.
SuperUberGeek, thank you for a quick response. I just can't wrap my head around how would this happen in the real world (and I understand the rules are not meant to perfectly emulate real world situations but rather make the game balanced).
I mean, if my target is letting his guard down in the first place, I don't see how he would be alert that I am attempting to take advantage of his inattention.
Also, what do you mean with "...as long as all other conditions of an attack of oportunity are met"?
Cheers.
Yup. Provokes as normal.
Dammit, I may be committing a "argument from authority" fallacy as I've been reading a lot of threads where CampinCarl9127 takes part and I've gained some respect for his opinions, but... I suppose if CampinCarl9127 says so, it must be right XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 4e specifically included a clause about OAs not being permitted during your own turn because these situations occasionally get very annoying to resolve. If you wanted to prevent this in a PF game that's the house rule I'd suggest implementing.
Yeah, 4e specifically included a clause about OAs not being permitted during your own turn because these situations occasionally get very annoying to resolve. If you wanted to prevent this in a PF game that's the house rule I'd suggest implementing.
Thank you, Ian. I suppose this settles the issue. And no house rules, thank you, I'd rather follow the RAW, I am a big square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha well I won't say I don't enjoy the flattery, thank you! I would advise you to take your own advice and don't subscribe to the "argument from authority" fallacy, only subscribing to me if my arguments continue to make sense :P
I didn't cite sources for my argument mostly because I was just throwing in my towel with the others who also have the same, correct point. I don't think there's an actual quote in the rulebook that says something like "You are not exempt from provoking an attack of opportunity when performing an attack of opportunity", but my reasoning is that there is no special clause protecting you from AoOs while performing an AoO there's no reason why it wouldn't provoke. It's kind of like "Do you not provoke an AoO when fighting left-handed?" Well even though none of the rules for fighting left-handed (not an actual section in the rules, just an example) specifically say that you provoke as normal, since none of the rules say there is an exception to the provoking rules that means there is no exception and you provoke as normal.
So yeah, shenanigans can get out of hand. Especially since AoO's resolve before the action that triggered them. Imagine two people with reach weapons attacking each other that have already used their 5 foot steps for this round.
a) I trip b.
b) I use my AoO to trip a.
a) I use my AoO to sunder b's weapon.
b) I use my AoO to disarm a!
a) I use my AoO to disarm b!
And then resolve in reverse order, meaning that if either disarm check is successful than all of the other provoked AoO's do not resolve because it is no longer possible.
If both people have a high dex and combat reflexes, shenanigans can definitely be had. Try looking at two barbarians who both have the "Come and get me" rage power.
Edit: Forgot to include a detail, thanks bbangerter.
a) I trip b.
b) I use my AoO to trip a.
a) I use my AoO to sunder b's weapon.
b) I use my AoO to disarm a!
a) I use my AoO to disarm b!And then resolve in reverse order, meaning that if either disarm check is successful than all of the other provoked AoO's do not resolve because it is no longer possible.
If both people have a high dex and combat reflexes, shenanigans can definitely be had. Try looking at two barbarians who both have the "Come and get me" rage power.
Being disarmed does not prevent you from making disarm or trip attacks - though you'd lose any bonuses from using a magic weapon in these cases.
Ah, I forgot a crucial detail to the scenario I set up. Thanks bbangerter, I have edited my above post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do take your point CampinCarl9127, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or something like that...
But I think what convinced me the most was Ian Bell's claim that "4e specifically included a clause about OAs not being permitted during your own turn...".
Thanks guys, I'm off now.
Being disarmed does not prevent you from making disarm or trip attacks - though you'd lose any bonuses from using a magic weapon in these cases.
a) I trip b.
b) I use my AoO to trip a.
a) I use my AoO to sunder b's weapon.
b) I use my AoO to disarm a!
a) I use my AoO to disarm b!And then resolve in reverse order, meaning that if either disarm check is successful than all of the other provoked AoO's do not resolve because it is no longer possible.
If both people have a high dex and combat reflexes, shenanigans can definitely be had. Try looking at two barbarians who both have the "Come and get me" rage power.
And then you have to add in the test for threatening if you are now completely disarmed and don't have the ability to threaten unarmed.
Even the tests for validity go on and on and...
|
I do take your point CampinCarl9127, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or something like that...
But I think what convinced me the most was Ian Bell's claim that "4e specifically included a clause about OAs not being permitted during your own turn...".
Thanks guys, I'm off now.
Note that that rule in 4E would invalidate several feats or feat chains in Pathfinder, like the Improved Trip/Greater Trip chain, and Vicious Stomp.
Greater Trip, which can be done either as part of a normal attack sequence, or an AoO, explicitly makes the target of the trip provoke an AoO. And, in addition, there is the FAQ on Gretaer Trip and Vicious Stomp:
Greater Trip: How does this interact with Vicious Stomp (APG)? Do you get two AOOs or just one?
Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.
Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO occurs when a foe falls prone.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
Note that that rule in 4E would invalidate several feats or feat chains in Pathfinder, like the Improved Trip/Greater Trip chain, and Vicious Stomp.
Thanks for the input, kinevon, its great to have more grounds for my argument in case I need to explain this to my players in the near future. As I said to Ian, I didn't intend to make it a house rule in my games to prevent the AoO chain.