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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 3949714" data-attributes="member: 1645">Naturally, I think it does.  The problem was the inconsistency.  Why, if someone puts their guard down, do I get a free attack, but, if they can't keep their guard up, I do not get a free attack?Yes, exactly.  The free attack is no longer free, just early -- which is still quite useful and important when someone is trying to run past you, but largely meaningless when there's no need to interrupt anyone.There are two important elements to my suggestion.  The first is that free Attacks of Opportunity become early Opportunities to Attack.  This allows a turn-based game to behave more like a real-time game, with interruptible acts getting interrupted.The second element is that letting one's guard down to drink a potion or shoot a bow should leave one flat-footed -- or "almost" flat-footed, if that seems too harsh.  The current quasi-condition of being flanked might be appropriate.Again, one key element of the Attack-of-Opportunity rules is that they allow a turn-based game to behave more like a real-time game, because some acts, like running past an armed opponent, should be interruptible.  If you would like to label that an "initiative" issue, then we can call it that.The designers decided to use the same mechanic for letting one's guard down in melee, but I think there's a better answer, which is to treat such characters as flat-footed or flanked -- and probably to give their opponents the opportunity to interrupt what they're doing, too.</blockquote>

Verification