Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 2745052" data-attributes="member: 3424">Well, since you brought up the concept of flowing time, consider this: The net effect of C's attacks on A over the course of a round is represented by the attack roll on C's turn (assume, for the sake of argument, that C's BAB is 5 or less and thus he only gets a single attack roll). If A defends himself &quot;normally&quot; and doesn't perform any distracting act, that single attack roll represents the net effect of C's efforts to attack A in the round. Now, B enters the picture, and does something that attracts an AOO from C. C drops him with the AOO. So far so good. B lowered his defences, and the net effect of that is C managed to injure him enough to drop him.However, it doesn't make sense to me if we go on from there and allow C to cleave into A. This effectively gives C two attack rolls against A in a single round, even though A was still defending himself normally against C and did not perform any distracting act. C's effectiveness against A is effectively doubled because B (not A) lowered his defences and performed a distracting act. That is what is hard for me to reconcile, and why I don't think it's fair.I know it's the rule and it can be explained in several ways - B somehow &quot;distracts&quot; A by dropping and causes him to lower his defences (even if A doesn't know B exists, as in the invisble dire lemming example), C is somehow &quot;energized&quot; by dropping B, C has learned a combat technique that allows him to turn a killing blow into a deadly strike against someone else, etc. However, none of these really persuade me, and I still think it's unfair to A.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 2745052, member: 3424"] Well, since you brought up the concept of flowing time, consider this: The net effect of C's attacks on A over the course of a round is represented by the attack roll on C's turn (assume, for the sake of argument, that C's BAB is 5 or less and thus he only gets a single attack roll). If A defends himself "normally" and doesn't perform any distracting act, that single attack roll represents the net effect of C's efforts to attack A in the round. Now, B enters the picture, and does something that attracts an AOO from C. C drops him with the AOO. So far so good. B lowered his defences, and the net effect of that is C managed to injure him enough to drop him. However, it doesn't make sense to me if we go on from there and allow C to cleave into A. This effectively gives C two attack rolls against A in a single round, even though A was still defending himself normally against C and did not perform any distracting act. C's effectiveness against A is effectively doubled because B (not A) lowered his defences and performed a distracting act. That is what is hard for me to reconcile, and why I don't think it's fair. I know it's the rule and it can be explained in several ways - B somehow "distracts" A by dropping and causes him to lower his defences (even if A doesn't know B exists, as in the invisble dire lemming example), C is somehow "energized" by dropping B, C has learned a combat technique that allows him to turn a killing blow into a deadly strike against someone else, etc. However, none of these really persuade me, and I still think it's unfair to A. [/QUOTE]

Verification