-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity
- Thread starter Dark Jezter
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
That's enough to make the rule important, don't you think?
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Something else: No 5ft steps anymore without AoO? IMHO a good idea.
Bad idea. But fortunately:
"Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack -- the 5-foot-step (see Miscellaneous Actions) and the withdraw action (see Full-Round Actions)."
-Hyp.
Re
This is a bad ruling because some players will engage in abuse of the rules? Its up to the DM to arbitrate abusive use of the rules.
As far as unconcious individuals are concerned, they are not attacking or taking an action that provokes an attack of opportunity, thus you get no attacks of opportunity against them. They are helpless enough that you can use your action to Coup De Gras them, which is much, much worse.
This is a bad ruling because some players will engage in abuse of the rules? Its up to the DM to arbitrate abusive use of the rules.
As far as unconcious individuals are concerned, they are not attacking or taking an action that provokes an attack of opportunity, thus you get no attacks of opportunity against them. They are helpless enough that you can use your action to Coup De Gras them, which is much, much worse.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re
So how exactly does drinking a potion open more of a gap in someone's defences than standing frozen and unmoving?
Not necessarily - let's say you're using an axe. A full-round action to make a single x3 critical plus Fort Save...
... or six AoOs, most of which will hit, any of which might by themselves be a x3 critical... with a Full Attack on top?
-Hyp.
So how exactly does drinking a potion open more of a gap in someone's defences than standing frozen and unmoving?
Not necessarily - let's say you're using an axe. A full-round action to make a single x3 critical plus Fort Save...
... or six AoOs, most of which will hit, any of which might by themselves be a x3 critical... with a Full Attack on top?
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re
How is it abusive to design a character whose fighting style involves taking advantages of openings left by his opponent?
-Hyp.
How is it abusive to design a character whose fighting style involves taking advantages of openings left by his opponent?
-Hyp.
Re
An unconcious or held person is not engaged in combat, thus they do not leave their defences open against an attacker. They are not in combat. They are basically the equivalent of an inanimate object.
A person drinking a potion while engaged in combat is threatened by an active combatant. They are both moving around jockeying for position and looking for open shots. When that person draws the potion, uncorks it and attempts to drink it, they leave an opening for an attacker, an unconcious person does not.
If an attacker wishes to attack an unconcious person, the attacker can simply kill them with a full round action or hit them very easily with regular attacks. Either way, the unconcious person is in a worse position.
I wouldn't allow such rules abuse as I arbitrate using common sense rather than an exact word for word interpretation of the rules. The fort save for death alone is far worse than getting struck six times.
It isn't abusive to design such a character. It would be an incompetent DM that allowed you take an AOO for moving in and out of threatened square (basically the same opportunity) and then have an unarmed opponent with no skill in unarmed fighting swing twice provoking two attacks of opportunity. The situation you are using to judge the new rule is not likely to ever happen or will happen so rarely that a DM would have to want it to happen.
I would hope that most DM's would look upon moving in and out of a one threatened square as a single AOO. That is how I read it. Movement provokes on AOO, drinking a potion another, casting a spell another, etc. etc.
An unconcious or held person is not engaged in combat, thus they do not leave their defences open against an attacker. They are not in combat. They are basically the equivalent of an inanimate object.
A person drinking a potion while engaged in combat is threatened by an active combatant. They are both moving around jockeying for position and looking for open shots. When that person draws the potion, uncorks it and attempts to drink it, they leave an opening for an attacker, an unconcious person does not.
If an attacker wishes to attack an unconcious person, the attacker can simply kill them with a full round action or hit them very easily with regular attacks. Either way, the unconcious person is in a worse position.
I wouldn't allow such rules abuse as I arbitrate using common sense rather than an exact word for word interpretation of the rules. The fort save for death alone is far worse than getting struck six times.
It isn't abusive to design such a character. It would be an incompetent DM that allowed you take an AOO for moving in and out of threatened square (basically the same opportunity) and then have an unarmed opponent with no skill in unarmed fighting swing twice provoking two attacks of opportunity. The situation you are using to judge the new rule is not likely to ever happen or will happen so rarely that a DM would have to want it to happen.
I would hope that most DM's would look upon moving in and out of a one threatened square as a single AOO. That is how I read it. Movement provokes on AOO, drinking a potion another, casting a spell another, etc. etc.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re
And yet you talk about preferring common sense over the letter of the rules?
Good grief.
If the unconscious person is threatened by an active combatant, there's no need to "jockey for position" and "look for open shots". There's no "leaving openings in defences", because there are no defences. The attacker can flail away as fast as he likes, and there's nothing to stop his shots getting through, no need to dodge, to guard against return strikes.
But your "common sense" ruling suggests that he can get in more attacks against a person who is, for a good part of the round, providing an active defence, but takes a few seconds out to drink a potion?
Bah, I say, to your "common sense".
I agree completely that, by the rules, you don't get an AoO against a held opponent. But don't claim that it's common sense.
The Spotlight notes that no matter how many threatened squares you move out of in a round, you only provoke one AoO.
Charging into a threatened square from an unthreatened square, against an opponent with the Hold the Line feat, is a completely separate issue.
-Hyp.
And yet you talk about preferring common sense over the letter of the rules?
Good grief.
If the unconscious person is threatened by an active combatant, there's no need to "jockey for position" and "look for open shots". There's no "leaving openings in defences", because there are no defences. The attacker can flail away as fast as he likes, and there's nothing to stop his shots getting through, no need to dodge, to guard against return strikes.
But your "common sense" ruling suggests that he can get in more attacks against a person who is, for a good part of the round, providing an active defence, but takes a few seconds out to drink a potion?
Bah, I say, to your "common sense".
I agree completely that, by the rules, you don't get an AoO against a held opponent. But don't claim that it's common sense.
The Spotlight notes that no matter how many threatened squares you move out of in a round, you only provoke one AoO.
Charging into a threatened square from an unthreatened square, against an opponent with the Hold the Line feat, is a completely separate issue.
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
