Where does it actually say if an attack of opportunity does or does not provoke an attack of opportunity (such as using grapple for your attack of opportunity without the improved grapple feat).
I say that you can't make an attack of opportunity with an attack that provokes an attack of opportunity. If two people without improved unarmed strike are fighting each other, they don't get to make AoO against each other for the unarmed attacks unless one of them picks up a weapon.
I'm not sure that answers the question, as that's covered separately -- you don't get to make an AoO unless you're threatening the square, which you don't do unarmed (without the feat).
What I mean is; can you grapple as an attack of opportunity without improved grapple. Trip? Sunder? I know you can houserule it. But I want to see where it actually says one way or the other.
I'm looking at it like an AoO can trigeer an AoO. I know I read somewhere that it was stated as being this (or that). But now I can't find it. I think it said AoOs can possibly provoke an AoO in which case the last AoO is settled before the first one is.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Page 66 of the D&D FAQ:
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).
|
I don't know where it says it. But I do know what it says.
Let's say you have two people. One of them is going to attack unarmed, and the other is using a weapon. We'll call them U (for unarmed attack) and W (for weapon).
U attacks W. U does not have Improved Unarmed Strike. The attack provokes an attack of opportunity. Because W has a weapon, he threatens an area, and is entitled to an attack of opportunity. He chooses to make the attack of opportunity as a grapple attempt (unfortunately, provoking an attack of opportunity since he does not have Improved Grapple or Improved Grab).
The attacks of opportunity are resolved in reverse order. U would get an attack of opportunity on W (except that he doesn't get it because he is not threatening an area). Then the attack of opportunity made by W against U is resolved. Finally, the attack that initated the whole sequence would be resolved.
Edit - Thank you Sebastian. You got in first w/ a page number even.
Your looking for this first part and this second part of the WotC Rules of Game article series. This covers pretty much everything about attacks of opportunity, but what your looking for is in the second one, under the title "Attack of Opportunity Chains".
Hope that helps!
Yes. An attack obtained from an AOO can itself trigger an AOO. For exemple, if someone was to use a trip attack to respond to a grapple. The grappler would then have an AOO on the person doing the trip.
These are the rules but in my opinion they are are unwieldy (You have to track who is doing what to whom) and a source of delay.
I strongly suggest that you house rule that when a creature triggers an AOO, it can AOO back
In the case above, if would say resolve the tip attack first. If it fails then the grappler has the choice either to trip back or to proceed with the grapple
Thank you, all! =D
Hunterofthedusk, I did have it houseruled otherwise. I don't now and it doesn't pop up that often. That's why I couldn't find where it was said so.