AoO's and being "held"

[RigaMortus]

So I'm brushing up on my 3.5 rules here, and I get to AoO's. And I read the following passage:

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.

Now if one were hit with a Hold Person spell, or paralyzed by a ghoul, or possibly even stunned... well wouldn't that constitute a "lapse in defense"? Wouldn't they be subject to an AoO as well? To take it even further, how much sense does it make that a Fighter wielding a sword and shield, can make an attack and move away and incur an AoO against them, but someone who is paralyzed and immobile and standing 5' from an opponent does not incur an AoO? Is there some kind of "hidden" rule I've been missing about AoO's and essentially "helpless" opponents?

 

[Artoomis]

Being "helpless" does not subject you to an AoO, instead, you are subject to a Coup de Grace.

 

[Darklone]

Hyp brought up the same arguing in some old AoO threads ...

I could see an explanation like this: Stunned/paralyzed opponents are not dangerous at the moment, you'd rather attack someone else (in melee you always have something to do!). If you choose to attack them, you'll hit more easily and for more damage (sneak or power attack).

This is a grey area of the rules ... if you would allow AoOs against incapacitated opponents, the game balance would prolly break. At least all spells or effects that cause something like this would be even better as they are now.

 

[Petrosian]

The obvious answer is that the held person or the door is defending better than the guy drinking a potion and thats why in a six second period you get ferwer opportunities to swing at the held person or the door.

I know i have run at least two threads on this, one in 3.0 and one for 3.5 after it too left the obviously contradictory text vs rules issue.

The answer typically boiks down to "the way we wrote the rules, it wont work to give AoOs against helpless people."

The followup question of "well why not write the rules right?" typically gets little.

With the rules for KIA at -10, allowing an AoO against someone who was just knocked to -10 will kill them, avoiding much of the death's door possibilities.

With the rules for AoOs being free swings, the possibility of someone with combat reflexes getting multiple AoOs against the HELD guy or the altar makes this very effective/dangerous and the current expected balances wont cut it.

In order to REWRITE the AoO rules to accomodate helpless, there is at least some other rules which would need adjusting to take it into account, which is why changing it NOW is tough as a sell. (hence the why didn't you write them that way in the first place.) its Ok to get theoretical six extra shots at a stupid archer because "he asked for it" while the tabel ot the held guy did not.

**********

My personal fave for a fix to make it make sense is to change AoOs from FREE swings to make them instead "earlier swings" allowing you to use your upcoming round's attacks earlier since their is an opening afforded by the lapsed defenses.

haven't playtested it yet though.