Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2745474" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yes, I agree. But, it is not just the concept of attacking outside your turn. It is the concept of getting an extra attack in, just in order to attempt to balance out some portion of the game that is considered more potent.The entire idea of AoOs has been part and parcel of our collective consciousness for several years now.But, when it first came out with 3E, a lot of players had issues with it because it was so darn non-intuitive.I even had a player quit because he had a problem with a Fighter "in front of him" who was "facing away" and attacking someone else with a longspear and when he tried to sneak up behind him, the opponent got a free AoO against him.I agree with that player. What the heck is that??? It makes no sense.But, this simple game mechanic rule has become so ingrained within our culture, that people even spend time explaining how something so non-intuitive actually makes sense. I have seen many people here on the boards trying to rationalize this type of thing (in fact, a few people did that here in this thread as well).AoOs were introduced to resolve the "Everyone run past the guards and attack the king. The guards cannot to anything to stop you.". It is a clever game mechanic trick to balance out such issues caused by each player getting one turn each round and being able to run past opponents in order to attack the spell caster in the real of the group issues.But in real life, you often have your hands full with one opponent, let alone being able to worry about what 1 to 7 other opponents around you are doing.AoOs turned into a way to balance out other tactical combat issues. For example:1) Archers can attack multiple times per turn virtually every turn. Fighters can only do this when they are basically within 5 feet of an opponent. So, archers have an edge and we need a balancing factor for that edge.2) Spellcasters can attack with spells that are often more potent than an attack by a melee or missile user. So, spellcasters have an edge and we need a balancing factor for that edge.The problem with it is that it can allow other abuses such as the fairness issue that FireLance has. But, his fairness issue is no different than the fairness issue of attacking someone approaching from the rear with a reach weapon while you are fighting someone in front of you with it. They are anomalies caused by the fact that very few game mechanics are good simulation models for reality. They are approximations at best, hence, there can be situations where the model breaks down.Cleaves on AoOs just happens to be one of those situations.I allow it just because:a) The rules allow it.b) It is not unbalancing due to the limited utility of Cleave in the first place.c) It adds flavor to the game.I can very much understand why FireLance has a fairness issue with it though.</blockquote>

Verification