Readied actions and opposed attack rolls.

[heavyfuel]

After getting no answer in the RAW Q&A thread, I come to the forums.

Character A full attacks with two attacks. Their (total, not base) attack bonuses are +12/+7. Right before the second attack, character B, who was readying for this situation, tries to disarm A.

After making the AoO against B with his +12 bonus, A misses. Now both A and B must make opposed attack rolls. Is the roll made by A with the full, +12 bonus, or with his current +7 bonus?

I'm looking for a RAW answer if all possible, but am willing to accept other answers too.

[Andreaz]

It's made at full bonus. The defender's roll does not interact at all with his turns' actions.

[heavyfuel]

It's made at full bonus. The defender's roll does not interact at all with his turns' actions.

That's what I think too, but can you provide rule text to support the claim?

[Morrolan]

Can you provide rule text to support the opposite?

I'm not saying that to be annoying. AFAIK, any attack roll is made at full base attack bonus, and the full attack -5 per extra attack is the "exception" and therefore specifically mentioned in the rules.

[heavyfuel]

Can you provide rule text to support the opposite?

Somewhat...


When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.)

Having a -5 modifier due to full attacking may apply. But then again, no concrete evidence. Also, no mention of "normal attack bonus" or something of the sort, just "attack bonus", which indicates you use your current one.


An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.

In the AoO section, the expression "normal attack bonus" is the one used. And the explicit rule that you use the normal one for attacks of opportunity indicates that this is the exception, not the other way around.


Still, nothing incredibly concrete.

[Barstro]

Disarm

As a melee attack

Even though you used a readied action, the "melee attack" is your move. Just as your move action provokes an attack of opportunity and the opponent uses full BAB on that, the Disarm check is also at full BAB.

The only reason you think that there should be a -5 is because you are looking at this as the middle of the opponent's turn, but it isn't. It is 100% your turn (it just happens to be splitting up the opponent's actions).

[Morrolan]

Actually I can't find the -5 for every next attack on a full attack properly explained anywhere in the srd.
They talk a lot about getting extra attacks when your base attack bonus gets high enough, but they don't mention the -5 anywhere I think.

The extra attacks do happen at a 5 lower attack bonus, but nowhere is it said that it is a -5 modifier or what have you. No reason to assume that it applies to anything else.

Or if you are not satisfied, just treat it the same as in the AoO part you quoted. There probably isn't going to be a ruling for your specific case, so might as well just apply logic instead.

[Barstro]

Actually I can't find the -5 for every next attack on a full attack properly explained anywhere in the srd.

I don't think they are considered -5 (otherwise, people would think that an attack with BAB +4 and total of +8 should get a second attack at +3). Instead, BAB is listed as (+4, +5, +6/+1, +7/+2). The great example of this is Monk, who starts with Flurry at -2/-2. Those are numbers to use when attacking, but for nothing else that I can tell.

I'll also point out, Disarm calls for "attack rolls", not "iterative attack rolls". Nothing else to the contrary, "attack" seems to use full BAB as modified. My interpretation, as poorly explained above, is that iteratives are not "attacks", they are part of a "full attack" that still uses full BAB as the basic building block.

[Morrolan]

I don't think they are considered -5

+


My interpretation, as poorly explained above, is that iteratives are not "attacks", they are part of a "full attack" that still uses full BAB as the basic building block.

This is more or less what I was trying to argue as well. I agree.

[Hiro Quester]

The only reason you think that there should be a -5 is because you are looking at this as the middle of the opponent's turn, but it isn't. It is 100% your turn (it just happens to be splitting up the opponent's actions).

This. Um.... Sort of. It's the middle of A's turn, which B interrupts.

If, instead of readying to interrupt As turn, B had tried this after As action on Bs own turn, A would have used their full attack bonus for the AoO and the opposed attack roll to disarm.

The only impact of B readying to interrupt is that if it succeeds in disarming, B denies A their second iterative attack.

[heavyfuel]

It is 100% your turn (it just happens to be splitting up the opponent's actions).

It isn't your turn.


The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun

[Segev]

Unless something states otherwise, you always operate using your full BAB as the contribution of your BAB to your attack bonus. Only when full attacking, on the subsequent attacks, do the lower BAB numbers apply, and then only to the attack rolls in question.

[Morrolan]

Unless something states otherwise, you always operate using your full BAB as the contribution of your BAB to your attack bonus. Only when full attacking, on the subsequent attacks, do the lower BAB numbers apply, and then only to the attack rolls in question.

Is this an official ruling anywhere? Because that is what OP is asking for.

[Segev]

Is this an official ruling anywhere? Because that is what OP is asking for.

It's based on general vs. exception. So no, I don't have that spelled out specifically overall; I just am applying the rules in order of precedence.

The only time the reduced BAB comes up is during full attacks, for the second and later attacks in the sequence. That is literally the only time that the rules call out using the lower base attack bonus values. There are a few places where the rules expressly call out using your "highest base attack bonus," but the lack of it in the disarm rules does not denote an explicit use of a lower BAB than your highest. It is, at worst, ambiguous, and can be analyzed additionally thusly:

Without having a BAB high enough to get second and later attacks, would you tell the person being disarmed that he cannot attempt to keep his weapon in hand, because he has no attacks left after having made that first attack as his "full attack?"

Essentially, ruling that you use the lower BAB is saying that having a higher BAB overall is a disadvantage because it makes the guy who has two attacks on a full attack have a lower anti-disarm opposed roll than the guy who has one BAB lower and only has one attack on a full attack, if both are disarmed after making their first attack in the full attack.

edit to add: This isn't to say that the rules can't say something so asinine, however I will point out that there is no actual rule support for such an asinine ruling; it is at best ambiguous in a way that could permit it, and since the ambiguity could be resolved in a way that avoids this inanity, it should be.

[heavyfuel]

The only time the reduced BAB comes up is during full attacks, for the second and later attacks in the sequence. That is literally the only time that the rules call out using the lower base attack bonus values

Would you argue then that a person with TWF being disarmed doesn't take the TWF penalties since they are only applied during a full attack?

[ComaVision]

Would you argue then that a person with TWF being disarmed doesn't take the TWF penalties since they are only applied during a full attack?

Absolutely. The Disarm action has no interaction with the Full Attack, other than being specified as the Ready trigger.

[Segev]

Would you argue then that a person with TWF being disarmed doesn't take the TWF penalties since they are only applied during a full attack?

I could be misremembering, but I think the TWF rules actually flat-out state that the penalty lasts until your next turn.

Note, too, that there is a significant distinction that the TWF penalty is a penalty. The BAB is not a penalty; it is a different BAB used for different attacks in a full attack action.

[Barstro]

Absolutely. The Disarm action has no interaction with the Full Attack, other than being specified as the Ready trigger.

This was in relation to Two Weapon Fighting
Two different things. (I'm going off my memory of just reading on Monk, so I could be wrong).

Two Weapon Fighting says you take -X on every "attack" until the next round. As Disarm involves "attack" rolls, then the negative does apply. If it is already the next round, then I think the TWF would have to decide at that point if the negatives apply or else not do TWF the rest of the ensuing round.

It took me that long to type that I was ninja'd? wow.

[Barstro]

This. Um.... Sort of. It's the middle of A's turn, which B interrupts.

If, instead of readying to interrupt As turn, B had tried this after As action on Bs own turn, A would have used their full attack bonus for the AoO and the opposed attack roll to disarm.

The only impact of B readying to interrupt is that if it succeeds in disarming, B denies A their second iterative attack.

Would it really deny the second iterative attack? I think they attack could still happen, just without a weapon.

[Segev]

Would it really deny the second iterative attack? I think they attack could still happen, just without a weapon.

Absolutely. If he has another weapon readied, is able to use unarmed strike, or has a means of readying a weapon as a free action (quick draw, for example), he can still make his next attack.