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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1805772" data-attributes="member: 5777">Yet again hyp, I discussed where and which part says what. The glossary does not say that, the initial part talking about attack rolls does not, only a third part farther into that section talks about it.So you are assuming special rules that make an attack roll based on combat is different than an attack roll based on combat (melee attack vs ranged attack). Go for it. I understand that your interpretation comes from the book, however I feel that whoever put that line there just put it in for flavor, because that is what it sounds like. It is an odd way to think about it and not very useful because it causes other problems.So, I have been talking from the other two sections, which mention nothing about it. The third just seems like flavor text. Flavor text which in this case causes extra problems. The srd has the printed version of the rules. It takes out examples and flavor text. Its use is so that other games can pick up rules for a similar ruleset.How many rules that are in one are different in the other?Not according to the other sections, which only talk about attacking and hitting.::shrugs:: All it does is create problems. Where as with the other there arent any. Where is the problem?Once again however, I have said previously, multiple times now, that the one section is simply something I consider an error. I even made mention of it. No need to repost it and state what it says yet again.Which is why you cant do it and the comment I was responding to that you made was incorrect.And I disagree with this as well. With what you have just said here the mechanics of the aoo would make no sense. They would not mesh with each other, it would simply be a pile of different, and conflicting, conditions which are then applied to the metagaming plane for recourse. But, since there are feats which can make one better at such things (emulating actual training) and there is 'choice' there then that simply makes no sense.If it has to do with randomly swinging around and an opening being there then you should not make the person choose a square. They already did a lot of 'random swinging' into the empty squares and the only reason they are getting this aoo is because they randomly swung into the place at the correct time.In other words, yet another part of the puzzle that is conflicting and does not fit with the rest.Aoo's are a reaction to a different situation, a reaction that takes actual choice. One has to choose which weapon to use, one has to choose whether or not to do it, one has to choose what sort of attack to make, one has to choose what feats to use, etc.So you are saying that one is randomly swinging around, this invisible guy provokes an aoo, the character then has to choose which square to attack to (even though they were 'randomly swinging' and the only reason they got this attack was because that random swing has a chance of hitting the person), gets to choose which weapon happens to be in that square, can say that he was actually useing his improved trip feat for this aoo (somehow he was trying to trip the guy he didnt know was there), can apply any other feats/spells/powers/whatever, resolves the attack, and still might not even know that the guy is there?Or, we could simply look at the bit of text as flavor text and avoid the whole problem.One of the two <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Probably since they realized that not everyone was assuming that if you have no way of knowing about something then you cant react to it.</blockquote>

Verification