| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does an attack of opportunity from crane riposte trigger paired opportunist?
I'm going with a strict technical reading of no, because the opponent doesn't provoke the AoO with Crane Riposte.
anyone have a different opinion or want to add their support for this one?
I submit that the Crane Riposter gets the +4 to his riposte (provided he is threatening and his ally is also threatening the target of the riposte), but the ally does NOT get an AoO on the target of the riposte as well, because the wording of Crane Riposte is NOT that the attacker who missed provokes an AoO, but that the target of the attack that missed gets a riposte as an AoO. Subtle but important difference.
EDITED: Clarity
Is this the scenario? You have CR, and make an AoO based on deflecting an attack directed at you. You and your adjacent ally both have Paired Opportunist, and your ally threatens the opponent.
I believe your ally should get an AoO based off of your AoO from CR. Though it doesn't say the enemy provokes, it seems like this should be unnecessary - provocation is a necessary component of AoO (can't make an AoO unless an AoO is provoked).
However, your ally wouldn't get the +4 bonus to hitting on their AoO because, if you're using the Total Defense version of Crane Wing/Riposte, you don't actually threaten. Your ally would receive the bonus if you were using the Fighting Defensively AC Bonus version.
Conversely, you wouldn't get any AoO if, for instance, your enemy makes an unimproved Trip attempt against your adjacent ally unless you're using the Fighting Defensively version of CW, nor would your ally get the +4 on their AoO, both of which require you to threaten the enemy as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it doesn't say the enemy provokes, it seems like this should be unnecessary - provocation is a necessary component of AoO (can't make an AoO unless an AoO is provoked).
I dispute this. If an ability says "make an attack as if making an AoO" or "make an AoO", then that's what you do. Even if there was no provocation.
Is this the scenario? You have CR, and make an AoO based on deflecting an attack directed at you. You and your adjacent ally both have Paired Opportunist, and your ally threatens the opponent.
I believe your ally should get an AoO based off of your AoO from CR. Though it doesn't say the enemy provokes, it seems like this should be unnecessary - provocation is a necessary component of AoO (can't make an AoO unless an AoO is provoked).
However, your ally wouldn't get the +4 bonus to hitting on their AoO because, if you're using the Total Defense version of Crane Wing/Riposte, you don't actually threaten. Your ally would receive the bonus if you were using the Fighting Defensively AC Bonus version.
Total DefenseYou can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
Nothing in total defense says you no longer threaten. It only says you cannot make AoO's. The ability to take an AoO and the ability to threaten are not synonymous.
Conversely, you wouldn't get any AoO if, for instance, your enemy makes an unimproved Trip attempt against your adjacent ally unless you're using the Fighting Defensively version of CW, nor would your ally get the +4 on their AoO, both of which require you to threaten the enemy as well.
Paired opportunist makes an exception to the rule of no AoO's while using total defense. But again, the distinction that total defense does not stop you from threatening is important.
Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity).
(Unless there are has been clarification somewhere that total defense prevents threatening somewhere that I missed....)
I disagree on Total Defense and threatening. Threatening is defined as being able to make attacks, even when it isn't your turn (i.e., where you can make AoO). Total Defense prohibits you from making AoO and you already can't attack while using it (since it's a standard action). It stands to reason that, since you cannot make attacks for the entire round while in Total Defense, you do not threaten.
Now, the exception spelled out in Paired Opportunist could muddy it a bit (and admittedly, I glossed over that when responding before). However, I'm still of the opinion that you don't threaten when you're using Total Defense, so this exception doesn't apply here.
Though it doesn't say the enemy provokes, it seems like this should be unnecessary - provocation is a necessary component of AoO (can't make an AoO unless an AoO is provoked).I dispute this. If an ability says "make an attack as if making an AoO" or "make an AoO", then that's what you do. Even if there was no provocation.
I don't see how saying you can "make an attack of opportunity" has any bearing on whether or not said attack of opportunity was "provoked".
Besides, the CRB refers to "Making an Attack of Opportunity" in the relevant section.
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.
This is immediately preceded by this:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square....
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
While one could make an argument for situations where a character is allowed to "make an attack as if making an AoO", it reads to me that if you are "making" an AoO, that AoO was necessarily "provoked". That being said, I think the whole provocation discussion is more akin to angels on pinheads - I don't know that the actual language in this arena is of the utmost importance. I think "provoke" is used in a more colloquial sense, rather than technical (though I obviously think the bases are covered in the event it is more technical).
There is a distinction drawn in the rules between provoking an attack of opportunity, and making one. Taken altogether I think it's more likely than not that you can make an AoO without one being provoked.
Contrast and compare a selection of abilities, here
Taken altogether I think it's more likely than not that you can make an AoO without one being provoked.
I'm not sure how that follows, to be honest. None of the things you quoted definitively say one way or another that provocation is necessarily a separate thing.
Moreover, "provoke" simply means "to give rise to" or "to incite" or "to encourage", etc. This is what I was alluding to at the end of my last post. In order to make an attack of opportunity, necessarily some condition must have been met that provides you that opportunity. What that condition needs to be can change depending on scenarios and abilities, but there will always be something that causes you to be able to take an attack of opportunity. Thus, one cannot "make" an attack of opportunity without some condition being satisfied which gives rise that that attack of opportunity.
If all of those things you cited change when AoO can be made, it is because they broaden the definition of provoking, not because they eschew it completely.
Did you do a thing which allowed an AoO to occur? Then you provoked the AoO.
he's showing that many abilities say "this provokes an AoO" and some say "Can make an AoO". Which is what cause my OP. Are these effectively the same just using different wording based on the format of the ability, or are they actually different game scenarios.
And since this is a game and rules we need to keep the Technical definition of Provoke and go with the game term.
he's showing that many abilities say "this provokes an AoO" and some say "Can make an AoO". Which is what cause my OP. Are these effectively the same just using different wording based on the format of the ability, or are they actually different game scenarios.
And since this is a game and rules we need to keep the Technical definition of Provoke and go with the game term.
Yes, but I provided the definition of provoking above. Provoking occurs when either you 1. move out of a threatened square or 2. a certain thing happens within a threatened square. All of these abilities referenced simply change what happens within that threatened square that causes an AoO to be provoked.
I honestly don't see how an Attack of Opportunity can be made if an Attack of Opportunity is not provoked, first. Unless there's some rule out there I'm not aware of (always a possibility), AoO only happen if something causes them to happen (in other words, they are provoked).
Besides, the game term "Provoke" uses "provoke" in the denotative sense, by its own terms. Hence, dictionary definitions could be relevant here.
I did say it was a technical and strict reading :)
Broadly speaking there are two abilities.
1) if a condition is met you may make an attack of opportunity
2) if a condition is met your opponent provokes an attack of opportunity.
Is there a material difference? I would suggest that there is.
Making and provoking are separate (albeit intrinsically linked) sections within the AoO rules.
While not always successful the rules aim to be consistent and meaningful. Without evidence to the contrary don't we have to assume the way the rules are written are deliberate and meaningful, and that significant differences in the way rules are written are significant?
Yes, we should assume rules are written deliberately and meaningfully. We should also assume that standard definitions apply unless we are given explicit definitions which differ from them.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity is defined using the word "provoke". "Provoke" is nowhere else further defined. Thus, the standard definition of "provoke" applies. There is necessarily a cause and an effect. "Provoking the AoO" is the cause and "making the AoO" is the effect.
And not to get nitpicky, but hopefully to drive the point home, your response demonstrates the logical difficulty in separating the two concepts here.
"Making and provoking are separate (albeit intrinsically linked) sections". If they are intrinsically linked, they are necessarily essential to one another. They belong to one another by their very natures. They are inextricably linked. In other words, they are inseparable.
In the rules, they are written in separate sections to explain the separate components, but they are both necessary components of the same larger concept. Attacks of Opportunity are "made" when they are first "provoked". If you can make an attack of opportunity, it must necessarily be that one was first provoked.
I disagree on Total Defense and threatening. Threatening is defined as being able to make attacks, even when it isn't your turn (i.e., where you can make AoO). Total Defense prohibits you from making AoO and you already can't attack while using it (since it's a standard action). It stands to reason that, since you cannot make attacks for the entire round while in Total Defense, you do not threaten.
Now, the exception spelled out in Paired Opportunist could muddy it a bit (and admittedly, I glossed over that when responding before). However, I'm still of the opinion that you don't threaten when you're using Total Defense, so this exception doesn't apply here.
The ability to threaten is a prerequisite to the ability to take an AoO, and not the other way around. Total defense only calls out the AoO. You'll need to cite text to prevent threatening as well.
If it stated "You no longer threaten" then by default you also could not take an AoO because of this dependency.
As you yourself just stated:
Yes, we should assume rules are written deliberately and meaningfully.
Ability to threaten was deliberately not mentioned in this case.
I know your not the only one who feels your view is RAI, but it most certainly is not RAW without citing text taking away the ability to threaten.
Broadly speaking there are two abilities.
1) if a condition is met you may make an attack of opportunity
2) if a condition is met your opponent provokes an attack of opportunity.
The first applies only to "you"
The second applies to anyone threatening the provoker.There are other potential differences as well.
I'm going with a strict technical reading of no, because the opponent doesn't provoke the AoO with Crane Riposte.All attacks of opportunity are provoked.
Maybe, but not necessarily. The premise that all AoOs provoke relies on an assumption (actually several assumptions).
There are a number of abilities that just say "if this happens make an attack of opportunity". No mention of provoking at all.There are other abilities that say "if this happens the opponent provokes an attack of opportunity".
I'm told that reading words into a rule that aren't actually there is a bad thing.
@SlimGuage: that's kind of the point.
@fretgod: maybe intrinsic is too strong a word. I was aiming for "closely linked, but not inseparable".
Feats and abilities change the way the CRB works all the time, even within the CRB itself. The abilities that skip the "provoke" requirement by jumping straight to the "making" step are exceptions to the CRB rules, or just invoking part of the rules. It's not that unusual.
The support for that is the list I gave earlier. There is a clear distinction drawn between abilities that "provoke" AoOs and those that "make" AoOs.
Either that or there is some substantial inconsistent writing. Not unheard of, but not a baseline assumption I wish to make.
I never thought I would agree with Fretgod about anything, but he right about this.
Hey! There was another thread like a week ago I read and didn't bother posting because you'd already correctly covered it.
So it appears that once in a while we do agree! ;)
I wounder if that's applicable here?Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
It would be. The only question is whether threatening is still an issue while using Total Defense. If it doesn't, then there's no concern.
abilities that "provoke" AoOs and those that "make" AoOs.I'm sorry about being pedantic, here, but you don't mean "make AoOs": you mean "allow you to make AoOs," right? I'm not trying to strawman you or anything: I'm just trying to come to an understanding.
no problem, I was shorthanding a little, where I say "make" I obviously mean "allow you to make".
I just don't see that.
Fair enough, not sure I've got anything left in the tank to persuade you, and neither you nor fretgod (and both of your opinions I have come to respect in my time lurking here) have convinced me I'm wrong.
I just don't see that.Fair enough, not sure I've got anything left in the tank to persuade you, and neither you nor fretgod (and both of your opinions I have come to respect in my time lurking here) have convinced me I'm wrong.
Respect!? You haven't been reading my opinions closely enough, it would seem ...
Oh no! I've confused you with fretgod97 again - I'm so embarrassed...
It would be. The only question is whether threatening is still an issue while using Total Defense. If it doesn't, then there's no concern.I wounder if that's applicable here?Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
Thought I'd seen something on this before, here it is (you still threaten while taking total defense).
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
It would be. The only question is whether threatening is still an issue while using Total Defense. If it doesn't, then there's no concern.I wounder if that's applicable here?Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
Thought I'd seen something on this before, here it is (you still threaten while taking total defense).
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
Read the post I quoted. ;)
In your defense, my verb tense could have been better. I should have said, "The only question [relevant to this discussion] was whether threatening is still an issue using Total Defense." Also, the third sentence is borked. Should have been "wasn't".
So even if it would have been a question before (I think it wasn't clear, but *shrug*), it certainly has an answer now!
Oh no! I've confused you with fretgod97 again - I'm so embarrassed...
Oh, now see that guy's a jackass.
Hah, I'm not paying attention.