Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="atom crash" data-source="post: 1893111" data-attributes="member: 22162">I disagree completely with the assumption that an AoO represents someone &quot;messing up.&quot; The AoO is a tactical decision. Sometimes it is worth the risk to allow your opponent the AoO, in order for you to gain something as well. Sometimes, I'd rather take the AoO to drink a potion and still be able to threaten my opponent, rather than take a 5' step and drink safely but allow them to freely leave their position, because next round I intend to full attack them. But I feel that turning that risk I freely take upon myself into a chance to harm my comrades is a low and sneaky tactic. Like paying someone the ransom for the safe return of a loved one only to have them harm your loved one anyway.Play it how you like it.If it took such in-depth dissection of game terms in order to play Monopoly or Solitaire, I bet only 4 people play those games.Anyway, let's face it, we here users of this board apparently attempt to figure out what the rules say and mean waaaaay more than the game's designers. Did they really attempt to write dissertations on the definition of game terms like &quot;ally&quot; and &quot;enemy?&quot; I doubt it. If they did, we might have clearer rules. Or we might have more convoluted rules that only a lawyer could decipher.The rules of the game require some basic assumptions, and that always requires interpretation. And I've chosen that my game doesn't include the combo of AoO+Cleave. Why? For the same reason that in chess you're not allowed to slip up and place yourself in check. My players are in complete agreement with my interpretation. If I have to implement a *gasp* house rule, then so be it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="atom crash, post: 1893111, member: 22162"] I disagree completely with the assumption that an AoO represents someone "messing up." The AoO is a tactical decision. Sometimes it is worth the risk to allow your opponent the AoO, in order for you to gain something as well. Sometimes, I'd rather take the AoO to drink a potion and still be able to threaten my opponent, rather than take a 5' step and drink safely but allow them to freely leave their position, because next round I intend to full attack them. But I feel that turning that risk I freely take upon myself into a chance to harm my comrades is a low and sneaky tactic. Like paying someone the ransom for the safe return of a loved one only to have them harm your loved one anyway. Play it how you like it. If it took such in-depth dissection of game terms in order to play Monopoly or Solitaire, I bet only 4 people play those games. Anyway, let's face it, we here users of this board apparently attempt to figure out what the rules say and mean waaaaay more than the game's designers. Did they really attempt to write dissertations on the definition of game terms like "ally" and "enemy?" I doubt it. If they did, we might have clearer rules. Or we might have more convoluted rules that only a lawyer could decipher. The rules of the game require some basic assumptions, and that always requires interpretation. And I've chosen that my game doesn't include the combo of AoO+Cleave. Why? For the same reason that in chess you're not allowed to slip up and place yourself in check. My players are in complete agreement with my interpretation. If I have to implement a *gasp* house rule, then so be it. [/QUOTE]

Verification