Help win this RAW debate with DM

[Unbeliever]

...
Most importantly, it is also very explicit that only actions or movement provoke attacks of opportunity. A helpless person can't take actions, and can't move of their own volition. So they can't provoke attacks of opportunity (unless someone else moves them).

This.  No, stop for a second, read Phaedrus' (and I'm sure other people in this thread have made the same point) sentence again. 

You have to DO SOMETHING to provoke an attack of opportunity.  Sitting in a chair smoking a pipe in your best Strider imitation may not be the most tactically sound position in the world, but so long as you aren't doing anything, you aren't actively giving your enemy an opening.  That's how attacks of opportunity works.  They are a consequence of actions, not inaction. 

What the OP and the OP's DM are doing is making up a whole new condition for attacks of opportunity.  One that would leave to a massive proliferation of them.  Here's the condition: 

I think that "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. " is more than just fluff and that's really all I can say to this.  Maybe I'm an idiot under the guise of RAW fappery indeed, but, in my mind I'd rather be conscious and trying to drink a potion then recently hit with a hold person spell when I'm trying to defend myself in combat.  I just think that this is obvious. 

(side note, I have no idea what the "I'd rather be conscious ... " sentence even means).  Ok, so what if you're blinded?  Flat-footed?  Flanked?  In a Grease spell?  How about the Hold Person example?  You obviously can't defend yourself when you're frozen like a statue.  Bam!  Attacks of opportunity abound!  All of these conditions have gotten significantly more deadly.  Combat Reflexes is an awesome feat.  And, so on. 

Now, I'm a fan of houseruling, so if that's how you want to play it, then knock yourself out.  But, no, it's not RAW. 

[Bozwevial]

Think of it this way. If there is a cursed idol generating an Unhallow effect next to you as you fight the necromancer sergeant, you aren't entitled to a free attack of opportunity every round against the idol, even though as an inanimate object it is every bit as incapable of defending itself as a helpless character.

And while it might seem silly that helpless characters don't provoke of their own accord, they're vulnerable to a coup de grace, which is much more lethal.

[Nachofan99]

As I said and Phaedrus quoted, only taking Actions provokes AoO's.

If your DM wants to use Fluff text for RAW text, that's fine, he still loses.

"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. "

Ok, *when* can someone take an AoO?  "In this case..."  What case?  When you let your guard down.  What is letting your guard down called, RAW?  There is specific rules terminology for this situation; you can take an AoO if an AoO was *provoked*.  The rules give a list of things that *provoke* AoOs; falling prone is not one of them, in fact, dropping to the floor as a Free Action is listed as specifically *not* provoking - although I understand your DMs argument that you're not dropping as a Free Action if it's on someone else's turn.  But see, look at the chart.  See under "No Action".  See 5 ft step?  That does not provoke either.  I don't see why Falling can't be under "No Action", also look a subscript 1.  This additionally reinforces the fact that falling prone, regardless of the action type, does not provoke.  It's right there in the PHB pg. 141.

Additionally, only moving OUT of a threatened square provokes.  Falling inside a 5ft square is CLEARLY not moving OUT of the square; it's movement within the square itself.  Your DM has no legs to stand on.

Where in the rules does it say Falling Prone on someone else's turn is an Immediate Action or anything of the sort?



Anything else is a house-rule.  Chart 8-2 is also very clear on this.

[RobbyPants]

@RobbeyPants - What the hell are you talking about?

I'm going to need more clarification as to what you're looking for. I thought it was pretty straight forward. Also, there's no 'e' in my name.

I'm open to being wrong, I just don't think anyone here has made their case.

I don't know if your whole three points and conclusion were aimed at me, or not, but my point is: In your OP, your DM made a point that you can't fall prone when KOed/killed by RAW. My point is, by RAW, you can take actions while dead. Both of these seem absolutely stupid by RAI, so perhaps your DM should stop worrying about the technical wording on this.

[weenog]

@Weenog - An infinite amount?  Is your dex infinite AND Do you have combat reflexes?  Otherwise it's 1 (a very finite number).  As far as making shit up the rules are both specific and vague about what does and does not provoke an attack of opporunity.  The players do not get to make shit up (but the DM gets to as long as he's consistent and enforces it lawful neutrally and the players are having fun).  

@Jopustopin's DM:  I don't need them.  If the fluff about letting one's guard down trumps the actual mechanics of taking AoOs, then I can make an AoO any time an opponent's guard slips whether or not the rules say I can make an AoO.  And if I can't make an AoO, perhaps because I'm out of AoOs for the round, the opponent isn't expecting them and that itself provokes more of them, which I can make because the fluff trumps the mechanics rules.  It's a vicious cycle that doesn't end until the opponent is dead or I get bored of making AoOs, whichever comes first.  You've made this possible for me.

The bold bit there is important, particularly the bit about the players having fun.  You're obviously aware of Rule 0, but you seem none too familiar with Rule -1, which actually trumps Rule 0.  It goes along the lines of "The DM isn't always right, but what the DM says, goes.  And if he says enough stupid shit, his players go, too."  What this means is that while you're totally incorrect with this call about becoming helpless provoking AoOs, it's your prerogative to be wrong like that if you want to... and if your wrongness is disturbing enough to your players, you will find yourself DM of a player-less game.  Then you can have fun wielding your authority playing with yourself and your prerogative.

[MalcolmSprye]

Think of it this way. If there is a cursed idol generating an Unhallow effect next to you as you fight the necromancer sergeant, you aren't entitled to a free attack of opportunity every round against the idol, even though as an inanimate object it is every bit as incapable of defending itself as a helpless character.

And while it might seem silly that helpless characters don't provoke of their own accord, they're vulnerable to a coup de grace, which is much more lethal.

I think this is the best example.

[Jopustopin]

Think of it this way. If there is a cursed idol generating an Unhallow effect next to you as you fight the necromancer sergeant, you aren't entitled to a free attack of opportunity every round against the idol, even though as an inanimate object it is every bit as incapable of defending itself as a helpless character.

And while it might seem silly that helpless characters don't provoke of their own accord, they're vulnerable to a coup de grace, which is much more lethal.

My DM:

This is the best argument yet against my stance.  If a PC had combat reflexes he would be entitled to multiple attacks against a door a round or any other in-animate object that needed breaking.  Let me ponder on this for a bit.

[bkdubs123]

My DM:

This is the best argument yet against my stance.  If a PC had combat reflexes he would be entitled to multiple attacks against a door a round or any other in-animate object that needed breaking.  Let me ponder on this for a bit.

WOW.

[archangel.arcanis]

My DM:

This is the best argument yet against my stance.  If a PC had combat reflexes he would be entitled to multiple attacks against a door a round or any other in-animate object that needed breaking.  Let me ponder on this for a bit.

WOW.

Even better, lets take one more step with this. I'll take a Level 1 commoner with a high dex (18) and combat reflexes and compare him to a level 5 Barbarian/Fighter/etc.. without it. The commoner can make 5x the number of attacks on that door than the melee guy who is 5x his level and an adventuring class. Doesn't that just seem very very wrong? Lets make the melee guy level 20 the commoner still gets more attacks than he does.

[X-Codes]

@X-Codes - Getting tripped is someone else using their action to force you prone.  Thus you fall prone by someone elses action (immediately).  Grease states you fall prone: Someone elses action causes you to fall prone immediatly. I agree that anybody that causes you to be prone makes you fall prone immediately. Consider (at least for a moment) the following: You get run through with a spear and you will not fall prone immediately. You will still be "on your feet" and then maybe slump to your knees before finally hitting the ground.  This will probably take less than six seconds.  To be honest this is usually a good thing.  If you're wearing full plate mail and you get hit with a hold person spell, you are already helpless.  The +4 AC from not being prone will help out if creatures keep attackin you. This falling prone thing has not caused any complaints as it's very specific.  But I just wanted to make sure that you don't think I apply it to everything. 

This is an argument about realism, not RAW.  If you want to talk about RAW, don't talk about realism.  D&D is not real.

[Jopustopin]

Jopustopin DM:

Well RAW you can only make attacks of opportunities on combatants.  But if I try to pull that out I really am RAW fapping.   Irregardless (or just regular regardless) I suppose I'm sticking with the RAW description.  You can only make attacks of opportunities on combatants.  What's a combatant?  I can't find the exact RAW definition so I suppose I'll have to rule 0 it and say that a door is not a combatant but a helpless character is.  (Although clearly a combatant is someone who rolls initiative: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm ) Perfect? No.  But less silly then suddenly a helpless character is immune to attacks of opportunity because of an assumed ONLY in the sentence "Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

Some of you keep asserting that I am using fluff.  I am asserting I am not using fluff. I notice that the SRD is almost completely lacking in fluff.  I take this sentence to be a rule from the SRD: "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity."  That is all I have to defend my position that it is not fluff. The SRD has almost no fluff (not necessarily none mind you, just very little).  



Also Weenog I am aware of rule -1 you can tell by the sentence that you bolded.  If you had taken a second to read the last AND you would have noted the "players having fun part."  Some of you may think that whenever a character becomes helpless I am making all of my AoO on the character.  That would be ridiculously unfair, unfun, and unrealistic.  However I have used the option ONCE because the character had lesser vigor on him and had gotten back up to join the fight twice already.  In combat your attacks of opportunity are all that protect you from being grappled, from being flanked, and all other sorts of things.  If you waste it on an already downed opponent you are just stupid.  Even animals know to attack the biggest threat available to them.  The point of having my friend ask this question was more of a philosophical one rather than a "HELP MY DM IS OPRESSING ME"  None of my PCs are complaining; in fact the rule aided them against a fast healing boss they had problems doing damage to.  We just wanted to hear what arguments were available against this interpretation of the rules.  Only one of them was convincing.  None of them sound realistic to me.  That's just me and how I roll.  

To those who found a way to argue with me without insulting my intelligence


@x-codes - I like my D&D with a healthy dose of realism. That said, I don't feel that I am breaking a single RAW.  If you think I'm doing something wrong, show me in the rules where I am doing so.

[weenog]

A "rule" that is descriptive, and has zero effect without being added to = fluff.  That stuff you're adding to it is called house rules, it's not part of the RAW.

"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity." does nothing whatsoever.  It allows nothing, it prevents nothing.  It's only when you start adding things like "The helpless condition is a sub-condition of the lapse in defense condition" that it even starts looking like it does anything.

It's easy enough to say things without actually thinking about or meaning them.  Saying it's okay for the DM to make stuff up as long as the players are having fun, when the DM is making up stuff that punishes PCs in the long run (everything that makes combat more lethal will do this), and when there's a thread that seems like a player is trying to get his deranged DM off his back, makes it seem more like lip service than actually meaning what you say.  Apparently, for now, this is more of a hypothetical than a cry for help, but I don't think it's difficult to see where one could assume you might need a reminder that your authority extends only so far as the players accept it, and not one inch further.

[Solo]

@x-codes - I like my D&D with a healthy dose of realism. That said, I don't feel that I am breaking a single RAW.  If you think I'm doing something wrong, show me in the rules where I am doing so.

The brokenly overpowered builds I make don't break a single RAW either, but I'm pretty sure we can agree they have no place on the table top.

[X-Codes]

@x-codes - I like my D&D with a healthy dose of realism. That said, I don't feel that I am breaking a single RAW.  If you think I'm doing something wrong, show me in the rules where I am doing so.

You are mis-applying the rules of falling prone.  Intentionally falling prone is a free action.  The section of the book/SRD/whatever that explicitly states this simply does not apply to being knocked prone by outside forces.

What's more, arguing that after being reduced to -1 or below means you're somehow "slumping" is plainly not RAW, because there are no rules, RAW, for "slumping."

Finally, if you like your D&D games to be realistic, then changing the rules to reflect that is, in fact, changing the rules.

[Mixster]

@x-codes - I like my D&D with a healthy dose of realism. That said, I don't feel that I am breaking a single RAW.  If you think I'm doing something wrong, show me in the rules where I am doing so.

The brokenly overpowered builds I make don't break a single RAW either, but I'm pretty sure we can agree they have no place on the table top.

What? My campaigns always start with the player characters playing ascended kobolds. That way, they get to design the pantheon.

Amazingly most gods are either kobolds, thrallherds, PaOed or all of those. And there's a bunch of them that's got snakes for pets.

[Jopustopin]

Jopustopin DM:

Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?  


@x-codes: You can't make up an argument, act like I made it, then refute it.  (Well I suppose you can, but it's not very effective)

[Nachofan99]

Jopustopin DM: What is the Cleave feat for if AoO's worked like you are saying?  The Cleave feat would SURELY mention that this attack would be "In addition to your AoO granted attack" right?

[Bozwevial]

In a Rules of the Game article here, Skip Williams seems to take the stance that the two cases for AoOs are the only such cases:

You can provoke an attack of opportunity in the D&D game in two situations, and here they are:

You provoke an attack of opportunity when you're in a square on the battlefield that a foe threatens and you leave that square.

You provoke an attack of opportunity when you're in a square on the battlefield that a foe threatens and you take some other action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Now, as for the helpless condition, I would argue that there's no fundamental difference between, say, a helpless animated suit of armor and a regular suit of armor. Neither can move and both have the same hardness and shape. However, under such a ruling, the former, by virtue of its designation as a combatant, constantly generates attacks of opportunity due to its inability to move, but anyone wishing to break the latter has to spend actions to do so despite the fact that the situation is nearly exactly the same.

Jopustopin DM:

Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?

It does not, since he is neither leaving a threatened square nor performing one of the actions listed in the table. However, the round after he does this, all eight of the monsters coup de grace him, since he's helpless.

[weenog]

Jopustopin DM:

Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?

Of course not, and I would ask just how much multiple jeopardy you want this guy in.  He's already given up his actions for the round, given up his Dexterity bonus to AC, given everybody a +2 to attack him for invisibility and a +4 to attack him with melee weapons for being prone (and these stack), given everyone with that ability free sneak attack on every attack within range, and he's subject to coup de grace attacks.  You don't need to add additional stupid taxes, the game taxes stupidity hard enough already.  Nor do you need to make combat more lethal unless you just hate your PCs.  They see the most combat by far and therefore are already likely to suffer every nasty thing the existing combat rules have to offer, often multiple times.

[Lycanthromancer]

These houserules make Combat Reflexes, Hold Person, and Hold Monster incredibly powerful. If there's even a single person nearby with Combat Reflexes, all they have to do is walk by a helpless foe and they can AoO it to death without doing anything but coming within range.