[3.5] With an AoO...

[Abstruse]

With an attack of opportunity, can you do anything other than just a standard attack? Could you, for example, attempt to trip or grapple an opponent, particularly in combination with Improved Trip or Improved Grapple?

[Knaight]

Yes, and there are feats and such that let you do everything up to touch spells. Grappling, tripping, disarming, sundering, and all that sort of stuff is avaliable from level 1.

[Lord Herman]

This is about 3.5, I take it? Best to put [3.5] in the title.

Anyway, yes, you can use any attack action as an Attack of Opportunity. So you can keep someone down by tripping him with AoOs whenever he tries to get up.

[kamikasei]

An AoO is "a single melee attack".

You can use a special attack action that is a single melee attack as an AoO; if it's described as a standard action, for example, rather than a melee attack, you can't. So you can disarm, sunder, or trip, but not, say, grapple, bull rush, or overrun. Boosting your number of AoOs available, maximizing your ability to take them, and using them to trip opponents is a standard tactic.

Note: I'm iffy on grappling, and I see Knaight has contradicted me; don't take my reading as gospel on that point.

[adanedhel9]

Anyway, yes, you can use any attack action as an Attack of Opportunity. So you can keep someone down by tripping him with AoOs whenever he tries to get up.

Strictly speaking, the AoO occurs before the event that triggers it. So you can't do this, as you can't trip someone who's already prone. If you really were intent on keeping someone down with trip, you'd have to ready an action to trip them after they stand up.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Strictly speaking, the AoO occurs before the event that triggers it. So you can't do this, as you can't trip someone who's already prone. If you really were intent on keeping someone down with trip, you'd have to ready an action to trip them after they stand up.

This is true and important. You can't trip-lock with AoOs, you have to use up your action (which locks you down, too; it still pays off if you're using Improved Trip).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

This is true and important. You can't trip-lock with AoOs, you have to use up your action (which locks you down, too; it still pays off if you're using Improved Trip).

The combo I see a lot is Imp Trip and Imp Disarm. Trip them, they stand, AoO to toss away their weapon, and they either draw another one and are done for the round or pick it up and provoke an AoO that you use to Trip, finishing them for the round. Expect to face a lot of quadrupedal enemies with Quick Draw and Masterwork Longswords after this.

[monty]

The combo I see a lot is Imp Trip and Imp Disarm. Trip them, they stand, AoO to toss away their weapon, and they either draw another one and are done for the round or pick it up and provoke an AoO that you use to Trip, finishing them for the round. Expect to face a lot of quadrupedal enemies with Quick Draw and Masterwork Longswords after this.

Alternately, I think you could do it with Robilar's Gambit. Since they can't withdraw, any movement other than a 5-foot step will provoke, and if they attack they provoke. That leaves them with...not much.

[kjones]

Can a martial adept use a strike as an attack of opportunity?

[Frosty]

no. A strike is a standard action (usually) and not an attack option. Also, whoever said that you can't grapple on an AoO is flat out wrong.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Can a martial adept use a strike as an attack of opportunity?

Generally no, strikes mostly require Standard Actions. There may be one or more that this doesn't apply to, and there are some that are designed for defensive use(immediate actions to interrupt attacks and boosts that last past the end of your round both come to mind).

[Defiant]

I've wondered about this and so far we're going with any regular "attack" except for a grapply.

Also, whoever said that you can't grapple on an AoO is flat out wrong.

And now I shall present to the OOTS forums, the great grappling recursion!

Character A and Character B both have 16 dexterity, Combat Reflexes, and neither have Improved Grapple.

Character A initiates a grapple. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character B.
For his attack of opportunity, character B chooses to initiate a grapple with character A. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character A.
For his attack of opportunity, character A chooses to initiate a grapple with character B. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character B.
...

The DM promptly bangs his head repeatedly into the wall.

[Talic]

An AoO is "a single melee attack".

You can use a special attack action that is a single melee attack as an AoO; if it's described as a standard action, for example, rather than a melee attack, you can't. So you can disarm, sunder, or trip, but not, say, grapple, bull rush, or overrun. Boosting your number of AoOs available, maximizing your ability to take them, and using them to trip opponents is a standard tactic.

Note: I'm iffy on grappling, and I see Knaight has contradicted me; don't take my reading as gospel on that point.

Grapple entry attempts are melee touch attacks. They're legal.

Bull rush, however, it not. No attack roll. Basically, any melee action you can do instead of an attack can be done instead of an attack of opportunity.

As a grapple can be done with, it's fine. However, bull rushes are a standard action, and are not done in place of an attack. Thus, you cannot.

[Frosty]

I've wondered about this and so far we're going with any regular "attack" except for a grapply.



And now I shall present to the OOTS forums, the great grappling recursion!

Character A and Character B both have 16 dexterity, Combat Reflexes, and neither have Improved Grapple.

Character A initiates a grapple. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character B.
For his attack of opportunity, character B chooses to initiate a grapple with character A. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character A.
For his attack of opportunity, character A chooses to initiate a grapple with character B. This provokes an attack of opportunity from character B.
...

The DM promptly bangs his head repeatedly into the wall.

They eventually run out of AoOs. Resolve as normal. Rather stupid, since they'll end up grappling anyways.

[Defiant]

They eventually run out of AoOs. Resolve as normal. Rather stupid, since they'll end up grappling anyways.

But they're nested grapples! How can you... how can you...

[Frosty]

Once the first grapple actually succeeds, the rest are discarded as the actions have been interrupted.

[Douglas]

They eventually run out of AoOs. Resolve as normal. Rather stupid, since they'll end up grappling anyways.

Not if they're both epic characters with Improved Combat Reflexes.

[vegetalss4]

Not if they're both epic characters with Improved Combat Reflexes.

at wich point you as a dm ask if one of them wants to do something else than grapling with one of their attacks of oputunity, if no they have just grappled each other.

[Curmudgeon]

The key to making AoOs work for you is feats or spells that give you bonus attacks. Improved Trip is probably the canonical example here: you get a free melee attack whenever you successfully trip an opponent. Then you start to get creative. You could for example take Snap Kick, which lets you add an unarmed strike whenever you make a successful melee attack. And maybe include Double Hit to strike with your off hand as well. So one provocation from an opponent could let you trip them and then strike three times when they're down.

[Talic]

Wrong. The grappler who successfully lands the grapple deals damage, which means it matters to know who grapples whom.

Further, if the winner was prevented from moving, due to a status effect, then it could get really, really bad.

Grapple attack hit, deals damage, character can't move. Grapple isn't initiated.

Character was dealt damage, grapple attempt ruined.

Grapple attack (next nest out) hits, deals damage, etc.

So if both did this 100 times, theoretically, as long as the person who landed the first grapple hit, there could be a lot of grapple hits, from one attack.

[Severedevil]

I'd argue you can't make an attack of opportunity with an action that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you can't do it without getting clonked, it doesn't threaten.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I'd argue you can't make an attack of opportunity with an action that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you can't do it without getting clonked, it doesn't threaten.

Threatening has nothing to do with disarms and trips. You can certainly rule this way, but RAW, you can provoke an AoO with your AoO. (And should your opponent be unable to make an AoO, it seems like a great opportunity to perform a maneuver that would provoke.)

And now I shall present to the OOTS forums, the great grappling recursion!

That seems like some really useless tactics, but I don't see anything wrong with this, or anything that'd induce a headbang. You start resolving the AoOs from the last one onward (i.e. the original attacker's AoO), and you stop when one of them succeeds in grappling the other. Just like Frosty said.

Wrong. The grappler who successfully lands the grapple deals damage, which means it matters to know who grapples whom.

Further, if the winner was prevented from moving, due to a status effect, then it could get really, really bad.

Grapple attack hit, deals damage, character can't move. Grapple isn't initiated.

Character was dealt damage, grapple attempt ruined.

Grapple attack (next nest out) hits, deals damage, etc.

So if both did this 100 times, theoretically, as long as the person who landed the first grapple hit, there could be a lot of grapple hits, from one attack.

Huh?

No, once one of them succeeds at the grapple attempt, all the AoOs stop. This means that Improved Combat Reflexes wouldn't even be an issue, as such - you'd just keep alternating the AoOs until one of them grapples the other, at which point all the others are ignored.

[Douglas]

No, once one of them succeeds at the grapple attempt, all the AoOs stop. This means that Improved Combat Reflexes wouldn't even be an issue, as such - you'd just keep alternating the AoOs until one of them grapples the other, at which point all the others are ignored.

An AoO happens before the action that provokes it. The very last AoO declared is the first one to be resolved. So, how do you decide which AoO to resolve first when there are an infinite number of them and therefore no last one? You have to decide this before there is any possibility of even rolling the grapple checks.

[Tsotha-lanti]

An AoO happens before the action that provokes it. The very last AoO declared is the first one to be resolved. So, how do you decide which AoO to resolve first when there are an infinite number of them and therefore no last one? You have to decide this before there is any possibility of even rolling the grapple checks.

It doesn't matter how many of them there are. You start resolving, and keep rolling infinitely, until someone succeeds at a grapple and voids all the rest.

It's really simple. If it makes you feel better, you can call it n instead. The next one resolved is n - 1.

Zeno called: he wanted to tell you that his paradoxes were just elaborate philosophical satire to make other philosophers' ideas look ridiculous.

[kamikasei]

Hmmm, let me see if I understand. Improved Combat Reflexes removes the limit on AoOs per round. To start a grapple, you provoke an AoO. And the AoO is resolved before the action that provoked it.

So, if two characters with ICR and without Improved Grapple start grappling, one will initiate the attempt. The other will get an AoO, and use it to initiate an attempt. Then the first will in turn get an AoO, and use it to...

In effect we have two functions calling one another, and each calls the other at the start of its execution. Infinite recusion, blown stack.

You start resolving, and keep rolling infinitely, until someone succeeds at a grapple and voids all the rest.

Do you mean, you start resolving at the "end" of the infinite sequence? But which character is at the "end"? Who gets to go first?

Zeno called: he wanted to tell you that his paradoxes were just elaborate philosophical satire to make other philosophers' ideas look ridiculous.

Von Neumann called: he wanted to tell you that your analogy is flawed.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Do you mean, you start resolving at the "end" of the infinite sequence? But which character is at the "end"? Who gets to go first?

The attacker gets to go first.

If there's an equal number of AoOs, the sequence goes...

Attacker attacks and provokes.
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs and provokes.
...
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs.

The attacker gets the final word, so to say.


As unlikely as this whole scenario is, it really does have a simple solution. You start making the grapple AoOs, starting with the attacker's, and keep making them infinitely until one succeeds, which really won't be nearly that long.

[Defiant]

The attacker gets to go first.

If there's an equal number of AoOs, the sequence goes...

Attacker attacks and provokes.
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs and provokes.
...
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs.

The attacker gets the final word, so to say.


As unlikely as this whole scenario is, it really does have a simple solution. You start making the grapple AoOs, starting with the attacker's, and keep making them infinitely until one succeeds, which really won't be nearly that long.

Not quite... I will use an easy mathematical analogy to show you why it's not necessarily that simple.

What's the sum of the infinite sequence {1,-1,1,-1,1,-1...}? Gut feeling would say zero, right? Well what if I told you that we could also think about it like this: take out the 1 and sum the rest -> what's the sum of 1 plus the infinite sequence {-1,1,-1,1,-1,1...}? Gut feeling would say one, right?

[Douglas]

The attacker gets to go first.

If there's an equal number of AoOs, the sequence goes...

Attacker attacks and provokes.
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs and provokes.
...
Defender AoOs and provokes.
Attacker AoOs.

The attacker gets the final word, so to say.

Slight problem here - the sequence does not actually end. Ever. That final "Attacker AoOs" is immediately followed by even more AoOs that provoke. The attacker does not get the final word because there is no final word to be had.