Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 3947680" data-attributes="member: 9002">confusedI took this extreme example to indicate that the common misconception behind AOO's (that it indicates a loss of concentration while dodging blows and stuff) is simply not true.  It's flavor text and not true to the mechanics.You agree with me, apparently.  Cool.  Great.  My point was made.Everyone keeps telling me that AOO's are a metagame rule.  Well, aren't all rules metagame?  There is no "damage hit dice" for weapons for a PC; no AC; no hit points.  But PC's know bigger weapons does more damage; more armor makes you safer;more experience in combat lets you survive combat blows.No, PC's don't know about AOO's, but they do know (VERY well) not to do certain things around a giant:  drink a potion, stand up from prone, etc.  Unless they have one of the feats in the game that allows them to ignore or exploit AOO's.  The PC's don't know the term AOO, but they sure as heck know the result (a potential attack), and how to minimize it or maximize it.  The feats they can choose certainly indicate that this is in-game knowledge to some extent.I'm not suggesting that PC's make a concentration check to drink potions.  That was somebody else.I'm not in a "metagame bunker.""Bad choices should be penalyzed, and you don't choose to be paralyzed."That is completely your own little hobby horse.  You can also be penalized with an AOO with the current ruleset if you are, for example, bullrushed through an enemies zone of control.  So this is not even right in 3.5.  I'd suggest just dropping it.The AOO mechanic was supposed to represent the danger of doing something else besides paying attention to the battle WHILE in battle.To be ultra-clear:  I don't care about house rules.  I don't need them, I am not asking for them.  I am not asking for a "fix" to 3.5 AOO rules.  I can do that fine myself.What am I am trying to say is this:The 3.5 AOO rules are inconsistent, and give rise rather easily to stupid inconsistent results, and I wonder how 4e will fix/revise them (if they do).I also, incidentally, think the way AOO's are handled in 3.5 leads to worse game play, which could be improved in 4.Take this example:16 scorpian attacks fighter1, paralyzes him.15 cleric1's action14 fighter1's action (currently paralyzed).If I had my way, various conditions (paralyzed, sleeping, blind) would generate AOO's automatically if the PC has the condition at the start of their turn.  This is one potential fix that 4 might select.In 3.5, the cleric1 does whatever, and although fighter1 is paralyzed, the cleric does not have to worry too much; the rest of the party can act before the scorpion's next turn.In my hypothetical 4, cleric1 knows that the fighter is in a really bad spot.  Being paralyzed in front of a giant nasty scorpion - that's bad.  So does the cleric allow the AOO to happen on the fighter's turn?  Does the cleric try to stop the paralysis?  Does the cleric draw away the scorpion's attacks via some new 4 mechanic?  etc.  There are more interesting choices to be made, and even better:  it's logical and consistent that fighter1 is in a lot of trouble.  It makes sense that the party needs to do something about his paralysis immediately, or he will likely be hit and hurt, bad.What are some other ways that 4 might make things consistent, while allowing for AOO's?I mean, you could just drop them altogether, but I actually like AOO's.  I wish they just made sense in 3.5.</blockquote>

Verification