Backswing an Attacks of Opportunity.

[Patrick McDade]

If a person uses Backswing and creates an Attack of Opportunity with his first attack (say due to Greater Trip) would the Backswing bonus apply to the AoO or just to his iterative attacks after the first?

[silverace99]

Patrick McDade wrote:

If a person uses Backswing and creates an Attack of Opportunity with his first attack (say due to Greater Trip) would the Backswing bonus apply to the AoO or just to his iterative attacks after the first?

I know this is an old post but it appears that the question was not answered.

Backswing description says that if you call a full attack, all attacks following the first get a double strength bonus.

If after the first attack you get an AOO, does that qualify for a backswing bonus?

From an imaginative standpoint, I'd say yes since your character can use his momentum to build up his backswing, but is there a rules expert who can give a definitive answer?

[Mortalis]

PRD wrote:

Backswing (Ex): At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first. This ability replaces armor training 2.

Well, going off the wording here I don't believe that the strength bonus would apply to any AoO, as they aren't part of the user's standard full attack action. They just triggered in the middle of it.

Even from a RAI perspective I probably wouldn't allow it, as they aren't part of the PC's attack "rythm". They just happened to create an extra opening in the middle of their sequence.

[silverace99]

Mortalis wrote:

PRD wrote:

Backswing (Ex): At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first. This ability replaces armor training 2.

Well, going off the wording here I don't believe that the strength bonus would apply to any AoO, as they aren't part of the user's standard full attack action. They just triggered in the middle of it.

Even from a RAI perspective I probably wouldn't allow it, as they aren't part of the PC's attack "rythm". They just happened to create an extra opening in the middle of their sequence.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you but let me put forth these arguments and see where it leads:

1) The wording says ALL attacks that follow the first. I'm going to assume that means all attacks that happen before the full attack ends. An ATTACK of opportunity is an attack isn't it?

2) If you say the AOO isn't part of the attack "Rhythm", wouldn't you then have to argue that the AOO breaks your rhythm and therefore your second attack in your full attack action shouldn't get any backswing bonus?

[Quandary]

the 'all attacks after the first' it mentions are referring to those granted by the full attack itself.
when it says 'the first' that implicitly is the first attack of the full attack.
thus, it is evoking the concept of a sequenced group of attacks, which are 'of' the full attack,
the 'attacks after the first' comprise the remainder of that sequential set.
that would not include any incidental AoOs which may 'interrupt' the full attack,
because those are not 'of' the set of attacks thus evoked, they are not part of a sequential group...

if you want to read it ultra literally/without context, then you should get this bonus for all attacks
for the rest of the character's life after they make one full attack. i agree we shouldn't do that.

it's a good question, and the RAW /is/ very close to justifying what the OP thought it does, but no, it doesn't work that way.
the wording perhaps isn't as precise as it possibly could be, but per normal standards of english,
it is establishing the context of what it means, which is applying to the sequence of attacks pertaining to a full attack.

[Mortalis]

What Quandary said.