New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity

[Petrosian]

As for teh paralyzed target argument, I completely agree that it is completely unrealistic for paralyzed creatures to not provoke AOOs....
You just have to come to a point where you just sigh and allow the fantasy to kick in, so that the game will be smooth and balanced and work.

Ok, i can buy into sometimes you need to have the rules fail to make sense for game reasons... balance, playability, these are all good reasons to compromise when necessary.

Now, the problem is, so far i have not seen a case made for why this is such a case.

Why would it be imbalanced to make paralyzed or helpless targets be treated as "lapsed defenses" for purposes of AoOs? Why is this a case where we must sacrifice the sense of it?

Why is this one of those cases where we have to surrender and say "we just cannot write a playable game that has this!" and then just handwave it away?

there is nothing inherent in any fantasy book i have ever read that says paralyzed people are more defensible than people drinking potions or casting spells. So its not a genre issue.

lets see, there might be the instant death issue where you get kncoked to -1 hp and the enemy now gets a free swing and drives you beyond -10 before people have a chance to save you. Well, that can be handled by a better dead system, off the top of my head making -10 not a rigid figure but something like your level or con as negative = dead or the sum of them. or maybe at -10 you go into mortally wounded and have to make a fort save to avoid dieing at the end of the scene.

I fail to see why rules could not be written to make AoOs at even involuntary" lapses.

matter of fact, with TK you can grab someone and move them 20' across your front line provoking AoOs for the movement. You can bull rush people and cause them to "involuntarily" provoke AoOs. For all you "must take action" buffs, these are obviously not a case of the victim taking an action but rather having the AoO trigger forces on them.

Why is it Ok for voluntary lapses, and some involuntary lapses but not other involuntary lapses to provoke AoOs?

 

[Shalewind]

For once I am in complete and total agreement with Petrosian.

It is absurb to think that you can get extra swings at opponents who open their defense and you can't get an extra stab at a helpless foe. The only argument for that I think you can make is that opening a defense hole allows the attack, meaning that otherwise, the swordsman wouldn't have been as quick, etc... but this is a very weak argument.

Sure, sometimes realism must be sacrificed, but personally I don't think this is one of those times. CdG is very dangerous, so held or helpless foes are fairly goners anyway. Allowing an extra attack isn't going to unbalance the game.

And if you are that strict about the balance issue, have being helpless just provoke ONCE. This would still allow just one hit under the new multiple AoO rule (which I am still duibious about).

Personally I find AoO chains, and several other "good" strategies to just be silly and never see them used. I would like to see AoO revised a little more, but this at least is a semi-step in the right direction.

 

[Number47]

Okay, everybody. Breathe deep. This isn't that hard. The reason that helpless people don't get auto-AoO'd is because they're helpless. No, it doesn't make straight-up logical sense. Neither does it make sense that everybody and their brother get a free poke at you because the evil cleric cast a low-level spell on you. If you want to play that Hold Person = pincushion, then you might as well just rule that Hold Person = death. Not to mention that it opens up a whole new can of worms. If the person receiving the AoO didn't do anything but be helpless, does that mean that I can AoO him as I move past? If I have combat reflexes and walk past 5 sleeping guards, do I AoO all of them? See, it doesn't make sense for helpless victims to be "sword-attractors". Without an initiating event, the rules for AoO break down.

Is it logical in all circumstances? No. Does it work? Yes.

 

[Caliber]

Re: Re: Re

Explain, using "common sense", why someone can get more good hits in against an active opponent than a helpless one.

Utilizing the example you've posted, I'd say the character you suggested is highly trained to use his enemies movement against them, much like some martial arts teach a person to use their opponents momentum against them (the opponent)

No momentum, no movement, no using it against them.

Just my take though.

 

[Grog]

Sure, sometimes realism must be sacrificed, but personally I don't think this is one of those times. CdG is very dangerous, so held or helpless foes are fairly goners anyway. Allowing an extra attack isn't going to unbalance the game.

Well, for the current rules, I agree with you. But if they remove the "only one AoO per opponent" rule in 3.5e, it's a very different story.

The problem is that a CdG is a full-round action, while an AoO is (essentially) a free action.

If there's nobody within reach of the character when he gets held, no one can CdG him in that round. But if someone had Combat Reflexes and say, a 20 Dex, they could walk up and swing at him six times, probably hitting every time since every attack is at the attackers's highest bonus and the held character has a Dex of 0. That would probably have a very good chance of killing the character right there.

You might say, well it's only a difference of one round, but since you get a save against hold spells every round in 3.5e, that's a very significant difference.

 

[Shalewind]

I'm breathing fine.

The reason that helpless people don't get auto-AoO'd is because they're helpless. No, it doesn't make straight-up logical sense. Neither does it make sense that everybody and their brother get a free poke at you because the evil cleric cast a low-level spell on you.

Why not? You can kill with a spell. I personally hate the Hold Person spell and try not to use it, but that is besides the point.

If you want to play that Hold Person = pincushion, then you might as well just rule that Hold Person = death.

Yep, that pretty much is the way it is. I mean if you are helpless, you can be CdGed easy. I know there are a number of debates about this and I don't want to open any more, but in combat if a person has the time, CdG will kill most people when used with equal or slightly less power foes. Held DOES equal death in many games I've seen unless there are people guarding the person that has just been rendered helpless.

If the person receiving the AoO didn't do anything but be helpless, does that mean that I can AoO him as I move past?

Absolutely. That's the point. I see no reason why that SHOULDN'T be allowed.

If I have combat reflexes and walk past 5 sleeping guards, do I AoO all of them?

Sure. If you have a Dex of 18 why not. They are sleeping and helpless after all and it can't be that hard to run by and stab each in a few seconds, especially in a fantasy game. This is also an extreme case.

See, it doesn't make sense for helpless victims to be "sword-attractors". Without an initiating event, the rules for AoO break down.

I disagree. I don't see anything game breaking in allowing the practice. I don't see it as a break down rather as a combat option. And isn't that what 3e is all about? Options not restrictions?

Is it logical in all circumstances? No. Does it work? Yes.

It's not that is isn't logical in all circumstances, nothing in d20 is. It is that it is more logical in MORE circumstances. And as the rule stands now, of course it works. It works allowing the AoO way too.

The only thing I see as silly with AoOs is the chaining effect. Stabing sleeping people as a free interupt action isn't that big of an advantage and the majority of combatants aren't going to be able to do it more than once. Personally, I see a great many feats more attractive than Combat Reflexes.

Edit: I've seen a lot of people mentioning you could get off ALL your AoO on one helpless person. Wouldn't being helpless just provoke once? IE> ONE AoO attack at most, since they can't do anything to provoke another one?

 

[Jens]

Edit: I've seen a lot of people mentioning you could get off ALL your AoO on one helpless person. Wouldn't being helpless just provoke once? IE> ONE AoO attack at most, since they can't do anything to provoke another one?

I can't speak for others, but to me the problem is that if you can get to take all your AoOs against a (stupid) mobile opponent, you should also get to take at least as many against an immobile/helpless opponent (whose defenses consists of lapses entirely). So if the rules say you can get only one AoO against each mobile opponent per round (as in 3.0), one AoO against each immobile opponent would be fine, but when (as in 3.5) one goes up, the other must follow. It's not like the same problem didn't exist in 3.0, but allowing multiple AoOs against the same opponent has made it worse. This means that it would not be enough to make being helpless provoke *an* AoO, it would have to provoke infinitely many AoOs (as there's no limit to how many AoO you could potentially get against a single active/mobile opponent).

 

[dcollins]

For what it's worth:

- For game-balance reasons, I'm completely happy with restricting AOOs to "distracting actions" (and not from the state of being helpless). It did occur to me that WOTC could include a bit of language rationalizing this situation (which wouldn't be too hard, namely an otherwise-threatening target draws attention with an action which lowers their guard).

- The AOO-chain concern seems theoretical at best, as frankly I've never seen two opponents both with Combat Reflexes engage each other to date.

- Clarifying the AOO-versus-invisible creatures would be a huge improvement yet to be made. The suggestion to just make all AOOs void against characters to whom you're denied a Dex bonus to AC is an excellent one.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

We play that you aren't allowed AOO's if you lose your dex bonus. You lose your dex bonus when "flat-footed" or facing an invisible opponent.

We decided this since Combat Reflexes implies that you receive no AOO's when "flat-footed" that this would also apply to any other time a combatant was denied their Dex bonus.

 

[Celtavian]

Petrosian,

So by common sense you are not referring to the rule "making sense" but as to how to "sensibly" use the rule ionce the rule is accepted?

The other guy then is arguing a wholly different point. he is arguing, and i have stated for a long time the same case, that DEFINING AoO as being a free attack granted by the enemy lowering his guard should also mean that defenseless targets also get an AoO attack free swing made at them.

Yes, you should get a free swing at the table and yes you should get a free swing at the held mage. They are not defending against you. So their guard is lowered and therefore you can elect to use your AoOs on them.

Just because they are not fighting back does not mean, or should not mean, you have to likewise treat them as "not in combat". You should be the person making the decision as to whether or not they are "in combat" when you decide whether or not to keep attacking them.

They should not be granted an out-of-combat status by dint of THEM lowering their defenses or being forced to.

I don't disagree with you. If you as a DM wanted to grant a single AOO for them being helpless such as held or unconcious, I think that would be a totally reasonable modification. I don't think you should get your full compliment of AOO's because a helpless person has only provoked one AOO by virtue of being helpless.

I could definitely see a person allowed a single AOO to spin around and take a hack at a helpless person while fighting against other opponents. That would be very reasonable.

Such deviations don't bother me a bit. It would seem stranged to me if you allowed a person to take all of their AOO's against the helpless person, considering their helpless would only be considered one opportunity.

We will probably not allow an AOO against a helpless opponent because we feel Coup De Gras and the lower AC is enough of a disadvantage. I wouldn't see anything wrong with giving a single AOO against a helpless opponent.