Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1888250" data-attributes="member: 2011">The problem with your examples are that they are nonsensical for the following reason: All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character, the same moves could be made, and then Fighters could get AoOs against imaginary foes at any time, just to get the real follow up Cleave against the real foe.For example, your example here. The person pretends there is a goblin behind the mummy and does the exact same actions and gets a free attack on the mummy.Why wouldn't this work from a real combat perspective (as opposed to a game mechanic perspective)?Well, it doesn't make sense that it should.Precisely for the EXACT SAME reason that it doesn't make sense that it should if a Goblin was really there and really running away.And so far, all of your &quot;explanations of how it could work&quot; are that way.You are trying to justify a game mechanic which is non-justifiable in common sense (otherwise, the imaginary character replacement would work).Bottom line: If you cannot get this free attack against A if B is not there, why should you get it if B is there?This is an unanswerable question outside of purely game mechanics answers. It is unanswerable in real world combat terms and hence, the concept of Cleaves on AoOs is silly outside a purely game mechanics point of view.You cannot justify it for real world combat.You can justify it for game mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 1888250, member: 2011"] The problem with your examples are that they are nonsensical for the following reason: All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character, the same moves could be made, and then Fighters could get AoOs against imaginary foes at any time, just to get the real follow up Cleave against the real foe. For example, your example here. The person pretends there is a goblin behind the mummy and does the exact same actions and gets a free attack on the mummy. Why wouldn't this work from a real combat perspective (as opposed to a game mechanic perspective)? Well, it doesn't make sense that it should. Precisely for the EXACT SAME reason that it doesn't make sense that it should if a Goblin was really there and really running away. And so far, all of your "explanations of how it could work" are that way. You are trying to justify a game mechanic which is non-justifiable in common sense (otherwise, the imaginary character replacement would work). Bottom line: If you cannot get this free attack against A if B is not there, why should you get it if B is there? This is an unanswerable question outside of purely game mechanics answers. It is unanswerable in real world combat terms and hence, the concept of Cleaves on AoOs is silly outside a purely game mechanics point of view. You cannot justify it for real world combat. You can justify it for game mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification