Bringing common sense to AoOs

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Scion - sorry, three attacks do not equal three drops of the ball.

One attack roll is not one swing. One AoO is not one swing. Cleave is not one swing.

One attack roll represents the probabilistic chances of doing damage to someone over a period of time.

In other words, in a Str 10 peasant's hands, a greatsword does 7 damage on an average "hit."

That means that a peasant, fighting another peasant will do an average of (Chance to Hit * 7) damage per round, or .55 * 7 = 3.85 damage per round.

What this means is that, in roughly 12 seconds of combat on average, one peasant will knock the other one into unconsciousness.

Those 12 seconds of combat do not equate to two swings of the greatsword. Rather, they are filled with parries, voids, grappling maneuvers, hilt punches, etc.; they are filled with all the activity that takes place in real life sword combat.

Whether you describe the results of a 7 damage hit on the peasant as a single thrust through the abdomen or a series of quick arm cuts and leg cuts is up to you, but those other cinematic attacks - the grapples, the pushes, the attempted trips, etc. - are still happening.

A character with multiple attacks per round is not making multiple swings per round - at least, he isn't making more swings than he was before - he's just making them *better* and is doing a better job with those cinematic attacks - he's able to more skillfully parry his opponents' blows, and can create openings where there were none before - and so his average damage per round increases. That's all an additional attack is - a probabilistic shift in ADR.

 

[Scion]

Scion - sorry, three attacks do not equal three drops of the ball.

They do if you ignore the single line of flavor text which only applies to certain types of melee attacks to begin with. In this case the ball would be a ranged attack anyway, and even to the smurf that means only a single arrow/ball each time.

However, the example posted does nothing at all about aoo's, which is the point of the thread.

A character with multiple attacks per round is not making multiple swings per round - at least, he isn't making more swings than he was before - he's just making them *better*

That is certainly one interpretation, but far from the only one. Nor is it necissarily the best. That sort of interpretation brings up a lot of problems with other parts of the system, such as DR. The other way is easier to visualize and makes everything fit together much nicer.

Given the choice between the two, I'll go with the one that makes more sense with the game as a whole.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That is certainly one interpretation, but far from the only one. Nor is it necissarily the best.

I disagree, but then I'm biased and you're wrong, so....

That sort of interpretation brings up a lot of problems with other parts of the system, such as DR. The other way is easier to visualize and makes everything fit together much nicer.

I think you'd need to explain that comment a bit more before I understand what you're talking about.

Moreover, the cinematic swings answer rather seems to rather neatly wrap up all the AoO and Cleave problems; an AoO no longer represents an extra swing that you wouldn't have otherwise made - it merely represents an improved ADR, because your opponent is no longer fighting back as effectively as they were. Similarly, a Cleave is no longer an extra swing that you wouldn't have otherwise made - it is, instead, the ability to take advantage of the moment one of your current opponents *stops* fighting back, again, resulting in improved ADR.

A helpless opponent - because of his worsened armor class - likewise improves your ADR, and sometimes dramatically!

 

[Scion]

DR, energy resistance, and others all work on the 'per hit' category.

Just like the elan fears a lot of little hits while others fear the one big hit (barbarians couldnt care less about a lot of little pin pricks).

Hence the single swing that actually deals the damage. It fits into the system much better. In fact, it is already there, as ranged attacks already work under this mode anyway. Simply extending it, as it should be anyway, to the rest of the system makes the most sense.

The damage isnt damage per time, it is per hit. Some attacks take 'longer' than others, such as the sweeping strikes of the war hulk, standard action and all.

Your commoner example shows just how silly it can be. They are clawing at one another with whatever weapon, but against someone with DR 1 a bunch of little hits wouldnt add up to anything, it is only a big hit that does. A hit sufficient to break through the DR. Otherwise DR would only be applied once per round.

Parrying with ones sword doesnt really have much of a game effect normally, but one can describe near misses, or misses at all, in such a way as to put it into play. That isnt terribly important. Or even a short jab followed by the full thrust, that is simply a single attack, but it isnt enough to be a fient or a fake in d&d because those are other abilities determined by feats and skills. It is still just a single attack, a single roll, a single form, whatever you like. But still only one thing. Not waving your sword around at random in every direction constantly but with certain parts of it doing little hits now and then adding up to some damage.

If that is the way you want to go then that is fine, but it does not mesh well with the rest of the system as written.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

DR, energy resistance, and others all work on the 'per hit' category.

Actually, they don't. They work on a per attack basis. And, as we've seen, one attack isn't necessarily one swing or one hit.

One attack *is* one "swing" only in the case of ranged weapons which, generally, do damage inferior to a similar melee weapon.

Your commoner example shows just how silly it can be. They are clawing at one another with whatever weapon, but against someone with DR 1 a bunch of little hits wouldnt add up to anything, it is only a big hit that does. A hit sufficient to break through the DR. Otherwise DR would only be applied once per round.

Actually, "a bunch of little, mostly ineffective hits" is represented by an attack roll that misses or that does 1 or 2 points of damage against something with DR, which it then ignores. Only seldomly do you attack so ineffectively that your opponent doesn't have to do anything to defend against you.

Again, if you assume that an attack roll is equivalent to the "one swing that counts," then of course you are going to assume that you need "one swing that hits real hard" to overcome DR; you've caught yourself in a loop of logic.

However, if you assume that an attack is equivalent to a statistical chance to do damage (for some value of damage), then it is no longer necessary that you have "one swing that hits real hard" to overcome DR. One swing that hits real hard is still a possibility - after all, the DM can describe it any way he or she wants - but it is not mandatory.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You're certainly welcome to that opinion. But that's a question of philosophy and taste, not mechanics. Most D&D game mechanics are abstract.

You may like that, you may dislike it, you may change it or not to fit your own needs, but the game as written pays almost no attention to reality outside its own structure.

Of course it is a matter of philosophy and taste. Particularly taste. That is why I used the words "a broad definition of versimilitude". What falls under that definition is largely subjective.

I will disagree that it has anything to do with the level of abstraction of D&D mechanics. A more abstract system is not logically required to be less realistic.

 

[FireLance]

Well, then you should also not be allowed to do AoO, if you cast a spell on your action, or did any other action than a melee attack, or not?

Good question . Using a realsim argument, I can do a number of things simultaneously, such as eating a sandwich and reading a book while walking down the street because I use a different part of my body for each action: walking - legs, eating - mouth and one hand, reading - eyes and the other hand. I could not simultaneously read and eat and swing a sword because I would need three hands to do that (or get a mage hand to hold the book).

So, because you're lining up your weapon nicely to CDG, you can't make an AOO with it.

By the same argument, to take an AOO when casting a spell, I would need to be casting a spell with no somatic components, use a one-handed or light weapon, have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (and kick) or ready a weapon after casting the spell. So, I could not make an AOO if I was casting a spell with a somatic component, and a 1 round casting time, and only had a two-handed weapon such as a quarterstaff, and do not have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

So, maybe I could allow an AOO on a CDG if the character was armed with two weapons. Darn, this sounds really complicated. Maybe I should think about it a little more .