Attacks of Oportunity vs Paralysed Enemies

[Slayn82]

Well, i just stumbled in this strange paradox of the game mechanics. So you can make AoOs against enemies leaving your threatened area or casting spells, because their atention is unfocused from the battle and they drop their guards. Fine. So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE, you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.

Skip Willians has entered a little in the subject in his colum a long time ago.
Attacks of Opportunity (Part One)
Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two)
Of special note, in part Two, its said:

Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.

So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.
Things can get ugly for the helpless enemy very, very fast. For instance, according to the part Two of the article, if your enemy responds an action that provokes an attack of oportunity with something that causes AoO, the actions are resolved imediately. Also, from SRD

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).

Well, lets compare with another interrupt favorite, Contingency

The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur.

So, an AoO is as Fast as Contingency by RAW, and can be caused logically by "helpless" condition, like the enemy falling unconscious. The second part in the Contingency description is just clarification that the casting time of the contingent spell is not considered for the effect.

So, if a wizard has an Contingency prepared to teleport him away when he loses consciousness and he is stabbed by a Fighter to -3 HP, he is teleported away by the Contingency while, at the same moment said Fighter stabs him again? So, by RAW, under those conditions we get a dead body teleported ?

Also, what good ways exists to cause "Helpless" conditions in enemies?

[RagnaroksChosen]

Well to be honest doesn't a helpless person allow for a coup de grace... which meens you can just kill them as a standard or fullround or what not? so why would you want to make the AoO's

[robotrobot2]

In regard to your teleport example, the mage will not provoke another AoO. Once the contingency is triggered, the wizard teleports. Since it is effectively and immediate action, it resolves precisely after the event that triggered it. No other actions can occur in the interim.

[Slayn82]

Well, althought thats not really the point... Because of Contingency, just to start. Also, it allows to dispatch a fallen enemy between a full attack. Well, action economy is very important.

[taltamir]

In regard to your teleport example, the mage will not provoke another AoO. Once the contingency is triggered, the wizard teleports. Since it is effectively and immediate action, it resolves precisely after the event that triggered it. No other actions can occur in the interim.

i thought it resolves precisely BEFORE the event that triggers it.

@OP, you don't get an additional AoO against the mage you downed as he teleports, your assertion that you do depends on getting infinite AoO vs helpless... by the RAW you don't get ANY AoO against the helpless. You get an AoO against opponents casting a spell in melee, firing ranged in melee, moving in a threatened square, or attacking unarmed. While the AoO is resolved instantly, it is meant to simulate getting an additional "hit opportunity" during combat (remember, your attacks per round from BAB do not determine how many times you cross swords, but how many times you stand a chance of hitting).

[Slayn82]

By RAW, you can get AoO against enemies climbing, justified by the restriction of movement. And other cases are on DM's call, with the RAW as guidelines. So, the "Helpless" conditions that are way more restrictive than most situations that grant AoO logically should grant AoO too.

[cherez]

So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE, you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.

On principle of logic I have to agree, but I don't believe that's how the rules are meant to work, and it introduces some timing confusion, as you've demonstated.

Well to be honest doesn't a helpless person allow for a coup de grace... which meens you can just kill them as a standard or fullround or what not? so why would you want to make the AoO's

A coup de grace is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. AoO by contrast, are essentially free actions, so you can still use that standard and full action.

A coup de grace just means an auto-crit and a DC (10 + damage) fort save or die. It's possible for the enemy to survive that, in which case you could use the AoO to try to make the difference (very possible with combat reflexes).

[Tyndmyr]

Both the contingency and the condition of helplessness are reactions to the same event.

Contingency has no delay whatsoever.

Therefore, there is no possible point in time during which you will have a helpless target to AoO before the contingency goes off. Presuming, that is, that the contingency is keyed to the event causing helplessness.

[Siosilvar]

Of special note, in part Two, its said:

Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.

So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.

Not so fast. The enemy is doing only one thing: being paralyzed. One AoO, then next person's turn.

[taltamir]

By RAW, you can get AoO against enemies climbing, justified by the restriction of movement. And other cases are on DM's call, with the RAW as guidelines. So, the "Helpless" conditions that are way more restrictive than most situations that grant AoO logically should grant AoO too.

logic has no place in raw discussion. especially not to allow infinite free attacks by exploiting a bad mechanic of the RAW.

just as, if you insist on using a commoner railgun to move an item 1000 feet in 6 seconds, the last person to have said item can still only throw it for normal damage by the RAW... if you mix up RAW and logic you get "RAW lets you move it at obscene speeds, therefore logically it should do obscene damage" but you don't, you use either RAW OR Logic... where RAW there is no benefit to having moved it in obscene speed, and logic doesn't allow an item to be "given" more than once per round.

[Signmaker]

Well, i just stumbled in this strange paradox of the game mechanics. So you can make AoOs against enemies leaving your threatened area or casting spells, because their atention is unfocused from the battle and they drop their guards. Fine. So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE,|||||you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.

Justify this leap of logic in mechanical terms, or else your argument holds no water. Your current argument is currently using fluff to produce a mechanical effect. Seeing as the rest of your argument hinges on this logic, no need to talk about the rest.

[Slayn82]

@Tyndmyr: Neither AoOs have any delay. In my example both are imediate reactions for the same trigger. For one Contingency to act, an triggering condition must be fullfiled, and it acts by RAW (different from the ToS rules that are specific about this event) at the same time than the AoO.

@Siosilvar: How is that less severe than climbing? Or leaving another threatened square? Also, the continuous inactivity of the enemy could be viewed as an series of actions that provoke AoOs.

@Taltamir: Its not infinite free attacks, unless you can get infinite combatants to pass before the Paralysed target in one turn. Also, RAW states that the conditions listed are not all the possible situations. And it makes a lot more of Sense than many weird things, like commoner railguns or Anti - Osmium bombs. Its just one more instance where a Fighter can release his AoOs.

Justify this leap of logic in mechanical terms, or else your argument holds no water. Your current argument is currently using fluff to produce a mechanical effect. Seeing as the rest of your argument hinges on this logic, no need to talk about the rest.

If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

Edit: Anyway, i only intended to invoke RAW to argue that AoOs have the same priority than Contingency if they are caused by the same trigger.

And the Commoner Railgun makes no sense under common logic or RAW. Real craft persons make railguns in D&D with Walls of Iron and Permanent (Energy substitution:Electric) Walls of Fire.

[Signmaker]

If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

Except that the types of actions that provoke AoOs are explicitly listed, and most of them are even presented as per the PHB table. Therefore you can't assume via fluff that your prospect works.

[ericgrau]

Being paralyzed already sucks a bit much.

[Eloel]

Except that the types of actions that provoke AoOs are explicitly listed, and most of them are even presented as per the PHB table. Therefore you can't assume via fluff that your prospect works.

The OP 'knows' being paralysed doesn't provoke AoO, he's just wondering why, from what I understood.

Maybe, as a mechanic, take as many AoOs as you wish (upto your normal maximum) against a helpless character?
So, AoO the sucker right before your next round, since they'll just rest.

[Slayn82]

@ozgun: Yes. Well, i used to play a lot of GURPS and 2nd Ed., so im used to put common sense in my games if it doesnt breaks too much game balance, and i suspect that the fear of it being too unbalanced probably is the reason why the game designers not listed as such by RAW.

So, i propose that as an optional rule.

[taltamir]

the problem with AoO is that they are illogical to begin with... not the reasoning behind them, the implementation as an instant thing that doesn't consume time and happens on someone elses turn... so putting "logic" there to extrapolate more AoO conditions that the ones specifically listed by the RAW is a mistake. Especially when it is specifically used to further break the game.

[Slayn82]

Yes, thats the monopoly of the Casters.

See the point? When its about Casters, people are usually condescendent, but when its about physical feats (in the broad sense), its always restrictive because it will break the game.

[taltamir]

no. I hold that celerity is just as game breaking.
don't go with an appeal to emotion please, justify your arguments.

[Tyndmyr]

@Tyndmyr: Neither AoOs have any delay. In my example both are imediate reactions for the same trigger. For one Contingency to act, an triggering condition must be fullfiled, and it acts by RAW (different from the ToS rules that are specific about this event) at the same time than the AoO.

Unlike say, MTG, there are no stacking rules for simultaniously triggered events in D&D. Therefore, you cannot conclusively say that the AoO happens first.

On the flip side, the fact that contingency has explicit text regarding it going off instantly tends to support the idea of no AoO. Specific overrides general, after all, and the contingency rules are much more specific than usual action order, and is explicitly overriding them.

@Siosilvar: How is that less severe than climbing? Or leaving another threatened square? Also, the continuous inactivity of the enemy could be viewed as an series of actions that provoke AoOs.

Continuous inactivity is not a series of actions, either by RAW or logic. Inactivity is not an action.

@Taltamir: Its not infinite free attacks, unless you can get infinite combatants to pass before the Paralysed target in one turn. Also, RAW states that the conditions listed are not all the possible situations. And it makes a lot more of Sense than many weird things, like commoner railguns or Anti - Osmium bombs. Its just one more instance where a Fighter can release his AoOs.

Commoner railguns also fail the RaW/logic test, in that they don't stick with one or the other. Anti-Osmium, ditto. We have no rules for antimatter explosions in D&D.

Sure, RAW may not always make sense...but if you try to break RAW by switching between it and "real world logic" randomly, you get even wierder stuff. Your opinion that your idea makes more sense than commoner railguns doesn't make it legit.

If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

No. A single action can only ever provoke a single AoO(assuming 1v1 combat here for simplicity). In the same way that moving through five threatened squares is no different than moving through one, D&D makes no granular interpretation of how helpless you are. Either you are defenseless enough to provoke a single AoO or you are not. Nothing else.

I see this as far more realistic than infinite AoOs.

Edit: Anyway, i only intended to invoke RAW to argue that AoOs have the same priority than Contingency if they are caused by the same trigger.

If you try to pick and choose RAW only where it benefits your argument, you can't expect others to take the non-RAW parts seriously.

And the Commoner Railgun makes no sense under common logic or RAW. Real craft persons make railguns in D&D with Walls of Iron and Permanent (Energy substitution:Electric) Walls of Fire.

Yes, the commoner railgun is filled with fail. That's why you shouldn't use it as a strawman to compare your ideas against.

[Slayn82]

Sorry, it was just an AoO.

I dont think that everyone would like to adopt such a rule, but it does have its merits, like allow melee classes to be a little more strong and pack more punch without recurring to something out of the normal for them. Strenghtening their rules, per se. Since Casters are all about creating rules and exceptions, by their own nature.

[Tyndmyr]

Sorry, it was just an AoO.

I dont think that everyone would like to adopt such a rule, but it does have its merits, like allow melee classes to be a little more strong and pack more punch without recurring to something out of the normal for them. Strenghtening their rules, per se. Since Casters are all about creating rules and exceptions, by their own nature.

Balance between melee and casters is a worthy goal, but I really don't see this as accomplishing that.

Seriously, are helpless casters with contingencies that common? And even if the contingency goes off, haven't you already beaten them?

The problems melee face vs casters mainly exist when those caster are not helpless and/or are not in melee range or otherwise not vulnerable to physical damage.

[Dekkah]

I can see your point Slayn82, considering the fluff says AoO is giving an opening.
The problem with your idea is that it is would be extremly lethal for players. Enemies can use AoO. So if a player get to -1 (or paralysed), he will die almost instantly (suffer a lot) without even a chance to get help.

[taltamir]

I can see your point Slayn82, considering the fluff says AoO is giving an opening.
The problem with your idea is that it is would be extremly lethal for players. Enemies can use AoO. So if a player get to -1 (or paralysed), he will die almost instantly (suffer a lot) without even a chance to get help.

that... you make it into a "melee vs casters" argument... it isn't. it is actually much more of a nerf to your melee characters.

Your caster is flying in the back with protection from arrows... your melee guy is in the front dropping to -1. He gets AoO to death instantly by your rules. This will result in a significant increase of melee player death, a minor increase in player deaths of casters and archers.

Besides which, it is a bad mechanic to "nerf casters" or "boost melee". There are far better ways of achieving either goal.

[Slayn82]

Well, actually i agree with you taltamir. But it highlights some brutal aspects of the game. So im more inclined to suggest/adopt it as an optional rule. I know at least one feat that does something similar, but it doesnt takes an AoO, and works more to prevent ressurection.

[Tyndmyr]

If you want a brutal optional rule, stick with going below 0hp = death. This system will basically ensure this result anyhow, since hitting a helpless player is generally pretty easy. Plus, it's a lot simpler and faster.

[Slayn82]

Yes, but there are the occasions where you have an enemy paralysed or otherwise held for one round, and then you slash him. Or when you make an heroic sacrifice to hold the BBEG for your companions to strike you and him. On those situations, having those extra attacks is nice.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, but there are the occasions where you have an enemy paralysed or otherwise held for one round, and then you slash him. Or when you make an heroic sacrifice to hold the BBEG for your companions to strike you and him. On those situations, having those extra attacks is nice.

Wait, so if you grapple someone, your buddies get to AoO him?

This is sounding wierder and wierder. It also seems like it makes battlefield control even more powerful...and it's already considered the best option.

[Slayn82]

Wait, so if you grapple someone, your buddies get to AoO him?

Yes, held enemies are considered "Helpless" by the rules against people out of the grapple. But trying to hit someone in a grapple involve random chances, so you can end up hitting any of them.

Battlefield control is vital in any kind of battle, in any form. Im just all in favor of trying to do it without magic, if there is a way.

[jmbrown]

Skip Willians has entered a little in the subject in his colum a long time ago.

Just as a little note, anything not in the errata isn't RAW and can be safely ignored unless you want to homebrew it. The FAQ isn't RAW and neither is Wizards' columns even by the actual creators.

So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.
Things can get ugly for the helpless enemy very, very fast. For instance, according to the part Two of the article, if your enemy responds an action that provokes an attack of oportunity with something that causes AoO, the actions are resolved imediately. Also, from SRD

By RAW, AoO's are only caused by two things: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action that provokes it. The helpless condition is neither a move nor an action. "Falling" unconscious is neither a move nor an action.

Now, if someone were to bull rush or use telekinesis (or any power that moves) on a paralyzed or unconscious creature that causes them to move through your squares (he could even fall from a great distance past you so long as you threaten the squares he falls from) you'd be able to get your AoO. As I said, AoO's are only provoked by actions and movement. Being helpless is a lack of action, not an actual action.