|
"(combat reflexes) does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus."
By RAW, the answer would be 3 : Each ranged attack during the full attack action provokes as a separate opportunity.
Note that someone provoking by leaving a threatened square can only provoke once by round this way.
3? (Each ranged attack provokes as separate opportunities)
I'd definitely say this option. If a single bow shot provokes AoO's, why wouldn't each shot provoke?
One attack action provokes one attack of opportunity. I really don't think iterative attacks provoke more opportunities. Unless that Archer does something else during his turn, like leave the opponent's threatened area, he would only provoke one attack.
EDIT: OR... The Archer can just take a feat/archetype that makes his bow attacks not provoke and then no one would be able to argue about it.
Each attack provokes. Each anything provokes. So if you do more than one action that provokes, you might get hit several times, even by the same guy.
The only exception is that moving out of more than one threatened square in a round will not make you provoke more than one AoO from the same enemy.
Since each ranged attack is it's own AoO-provoking instance, you get hit more than once.
Each attack provokes. Each anything provokes. So if you do more than one action that provokes, you might get hit several times, even by the same guy.
The only exception is that moving out of more than one threatened square in a round will not make you provoke more than one AoO from the same enemy.
Since each ranged attack is it's own AoO-provoking instance, you get hit more than once.
Attacks of Opportunity are provoked by actions. One action, one provocation. Given how tightly the devs have ruled on things involving "action" language, I'm going to assume a strict definition unless told otherwise.
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
A full-attack action with a bow is a single action, not a series of distinct actions. It is only one action. It provokes only once.
(Side note: this logic also explains why movement only provokes once. The movement is all part of one move action or one full-round double-move action, or one full-round charge action, etc. so it only provokes on attack).
|
|
Attacks of Opportunity are provoked by actions. One action, one provocation. Given how tightly the devs have ruled on things involving "action" language, I'm going to assume a strict definition unless told otherwise.
...
A full-attack action with a bow is a single action, not a series of distinct actions. It is only one action. It provokes only once.
Technically, an attack of opportunity is an "attack".
An "attack" in pathfinder terms is a standard action, even if we know that no, it isn't.Also, full-attack action allows only to use more than one attack per round. Since a ranged attack provokes, a full-attack action pretty much allows you to provoke even more. It is not a single action, it is a longer action than a standard one, during which you can use several Attack actions instead of one. Attack action with a ranged action provokes, then several ranges attack actions provoke several times.
Attacks of Opportunity are provoked by actions. One action, one provocation. Given how tightly the devs have ruled on things involving "action" language, I'm going to assume a strict definition unless told otherwise.
...
A full-attack action with a bow is a single action, not a series of distinct actions. It is only one action. It provokes only once.
Technically, an attack of opportunity is an "attack".
An "attack" in pathfinder terms is a standard action, even if we know that no, it isn't.Also, full-attack action allows only to use more than one attack per round. Since a ranged attack provokes, a full-attack action pretty much allows you to provoke even more. It is not a single action, it is a longer action than a standard one, during which you can use several Attack actions instead of one. Attack action with a ranged action provokes, then several ranges attack actions provoke several times.
No, you can't use several attack actions instead of one. You make ONE full attack action, during which you have several attacks. There is a very meaningful difference between the two as there are things you can do with an attack action (VITAL STRIKE!) which you CANNOT do with a full attack action.
A full attack with a ranged weapon is a single action, it provokes a single attack of opportunity.
Also, an attack of opportunity is NOT an attack action. It is not even an action. It isn't even a "not an action" action. It operates completely outside the action economy. It is an attack, but not an action. Anything which requires an attack action (VITAL STRIKE!) cannot be done with an attack of opportunity.
Granted, one attack for each time something provokes (with the exception of moving out of multiple squares in a single round).
The question is how many times does a full round action consisting of three attacks provoke?
I believe the reason that full-round action full attack isn't listed as provoking is that making a full attack doesn't in itself provoke, but each of the individual attacks could.
Instead of three ranged attacks, how would three disarm attempts or three trip attempts be ruled? One or three? How about one disarm attempt, one trip attempt and one unarmed attack? One or three? Or what of one kind of maneuver and two of another? One, two, or three?
Nothing about being part of a full attack action should exempt each from provoking in turn. Why should three ranged attacks be treated differently.
I would rule each individual attack provokes. Three total.
Granted, one attack for each time something provokes (with the exception of moving out of multiple squares in a single round).
The question is how many times does a full round action consisting of three attacks provoke?
I believe the reason that full-round action full attack isn't listed as provoking is that making a full attack doesn't in itself provoke, but each of the individual attacks could.
Instead of three ranged attacks, how would three disarm attempts or three trip attempts be ruled? One or three? How about one disarm attempt, one trip attempt and one unarmed attack? One or three? Or what of one kind of maneuver and two of another? One, two, or three?
Nothing about being part of a full attack action should exempt each from provoking in turn. Why should three ranged attacks be treated differently.
I would rule each individual attack provokes. Three total.
The trip example I think seals this. Everything else comes down to a question of interpretation, but I don't think that three trip attempts wouldn't provoke three times, and I can't find any language suggestin-g trip is different from a ranged attack in this regard.
So yeah, three attacks --> three attacks of opportunity looks right. Could still use a FAQ for clarity, though. I'm tagging the OP as such.
3
Movement is the only thing singled out as being one continuous action rather than discreet blocks of movement in between squares.
3
Movement is the only thing singled out as being one continuous action rather than discreet blocks of movement in between squares.
Not correct.
If 'Steve' elects to move past 'Larry' leaving multiple squares that Larry threatens, then Larry can elect to make one (and only one, even with Combat Reflexes) AOO on Steve for leaving any one of those squares.
Each leaving of a square provokes, the exception is that you can only make one AOO for all of those provocations. It does not say WHICH provocation or that it's just one provocation.
If Larry winds up tripping Steve then it may matter where this action occurs.
-James
Even if I move 4 squares it is still only one action, and since AoO's occur before the triggering event takes place then it would have to be upon leaving the first threatened square. After that the window of opportunity is gone.
PRD=Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
In short it is first square or bust. You don't get to choose when the opportunity takes place, only whether or not to make the attack when it does take place.
Not correct.
If 'Steve' elects to move past 'Larry' leaving multiple squares that Larry threatens, then Larry can elect to make one (and only one, even with Combat Reflexes) AOO on Steve for leaving any one of those squares.
This is correct. You don't contradict anything i said. Movement is counts as one action. That's why you only get one AoO. A full attack does not count as one action, thats why Archer Bob gets bashed in the face 3 times.
Each leaving of a square provokes, the exception is that you can only make one AOO for all of those provocations. It does not say WHICH provocation or that it's just one provocation.
It does say that there's only one provocation per action.
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity
But I agree with you that the attacker has the right to decide when to take it. He could wait until say, the foe moved in between him and a flanker.
Moving is one opportunity, you get one attack. Without that clause you could get multiple attacks. Full attack doesn't have that clause, so Archer Bob gets smacked multiple times in the face.
Someone gets an AoO if you do something, that opens your defense - basically, you can not evade or parry while you use a ranged weapon or do the somatics of a spell.
Now, if someone is pretty fast - because he has a high bab - how does that change the Opportunist? If you fire 1 arrow or if you fire 3 arrows, your opponent has exactly the same time to react, it's you who's fast, not your opponent.
Arguing this way, he gets 1 AoO.
And @ all the others posting here, please stop immidiately to regard rules as physical laws. There is something called common sense which you can apply. Common sense trumps RAW. I don't say that my argumentation is perfect and that one couldn't argue for 3 AoOs but do it with some real world logic, not with blindly reading the rules.
Someone gets an AoO if you do something, that opens your defense - basically, you can not evade or parry while you use a ranged weapon or do the somatics of a spell.
Now, if someone is pretty fast - because he has a high bab - how does that change the Opportunist? If you fire 1 arrow or if you fire 3 arrows, your opponent has exactly the same time to react, it's you who's fast, not your opponent.
Common sense isn't very common. People also disagree on what the common sense answer is. For example, while you say that a high bab archer is fast, i say combat reflexes also indicates that someone is fast.
Another way to look at this is if someone with combat reflexes and a 17 dex can strike 3 times quicker than the average person, then they should be able to make 3 strikes on any one given opportunity right? This is common sense, so we can ignore the only one whack per opportunity rule, and archer bob gets three whacks in the face on the first arrow.
Someone gets an AoO if you do something, that opens your defense - basically, you can not evade or parry while you use a ranged weapon or do the somatics of a spell.
Now, if someone is pretty fast - because he has a high bab - how does that change the Opportunist? If you fire 1 arrow or if you fire 3 arrows, your opponent has exactly the same time to react, it's you who's fast, not your opponent.
Arguing this way, he gets 1 AoO.And @ all the others posting here, please stop immidiately to regard rules as physical laws. There is something called common sense which you can apply. Common sense trumps RAW. I don't say that my argumentation is perfect and that one couldn't argue for 3 AoOs but do it with some real world logic, not with blindly reading the rules.
In the real world people don't fire bows that accurately with that type of speed shooting across a battlefield, and never hitting any bystanders. That fact that archers are doing things we can't do kicked real world logic out of the discussion a while back.
|
If you fire 1 arrow or if you fire 3 arrows, your opponent has exactly the same time to react, it's you who's fast, not your opponent.
You're also having to pause in actively evading the attacks of you opponent to aim. I would say it was during these points in the round that open you up to AoO. Three shots, three pauses, three AoO.
EDIT: remember, combat isn't you and you opponent merely standing there swapping blows. Each round is an abstraction of 6 seconds of blocks, dodges, feints and potential hits. The number of attacks one has available is just a representation of the number of potential hits that got through your opponents defensive maneuvering. So it's not really a matter of being 'quicker' it's a matter of being more skilled at identifying the openings as they are presented.
Even if I move 4 squares it is still only one action, and since AoO's occur before the triggering event takes place then it would have to be upon leaving the first threatened square. After that the window of opportunity is gone.In short it is first square or bust. You don't get to choose when the opportunity takes place, only whether or not to make the attack when it does take place.
Incorrect.
With your logic you would not be able to take an AOO against someone that didn't start their turn threatened by you because before they started their movement they were out of reach.
You do indeed get to choose whether or not you take an AOO each and every time one is provoked.
Leaving a threatened square provokes.
The only limitation is that you cannot take a second AOO against a given target for leaving multiple squares. Likewise there is a limitation on the total number of AOOs you can make before the start of your next turn (namely 1 baring the feat combat reflexes).
The 'actions' that they spend do not matter, rather it is the provocations that matter.
A PC can provoke while making an AOO, or with their 2nd of 4 attacks. The first is not an action while the second is part of a full attack action.
-James
James I saying the AoO occurs with the first threatened square. I did not think I had to spell that much out.
My point is that there is only one AoO. It happens just before you leave that square(first square).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
I believe that you can make only 1 attack of Opportunity due to the movement of a character through threatened squares, but you can decide (as they leave each threatened square) when you want to make that attack.
I believe that you can make only 1 attack of Opportunity due to the movement of a character through threatened squares, but you can decide (as they leave each threatened square) when you want to make that attack.
That is how I play it for RAI, but RAW there is only one opportunity(not attack of opportunity) during the entire sequence. If they had said you can only make one attack of opportunity that would be different since an opportunity available, and one taken are two different things.