Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 878993" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p><strong>Re</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Common sense and realistic, are two different things. It is a common sense application of the rule as in a sensible DM doesn't let a player do this. </p><p></p><p>The DM looks at the series of AOO's and decides what seems appropriate. The AOO rule is there to allow a player to strike an opponent who temporarily drops their guard during a combat sequence. Like when a person uses a potion, leaving an opening for one of those many attacks that happen but don't hit to hit. (the interpretation for combat exchanges is a series of blows with your BAB determining how many effective blows you can attempt. As in there are 10 blows exchanged, but only 3 or 4 are going to be effective blows even at high level) That is what an AOO is.</p><p></p><p>For the sake of simplicity, they determined that an unconcious person is not really engaged in combat, and that allowing a person to Coup De Gras that individual or hack at them with a severely lowered armor class was good enough. You can basically hack away at the person unimpeded. AOO's were unnecessary because they weren't really doing anything to provoke them and for the most part, the active combatant could just walk up and hack them do death. Do you really need a whole bunch of extra AOO's to hack apart an unconcious person?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is where you as a DM decide that the feat choices of said player have allowed them to abuse the rules, so you make changes. Why? The game designers in an RPG can only do so much. It is up to the DM's to arbitrate a rule that has gotten out of hand whether it is a combination of feats or a particular spell application that the game designers failed to take into account when designing the rules.</p><p></p><p>If the combination of feats you suggest become a problem in the game, I am quite sure that they will errata a change or make a change in the next edition. I would be very surprised if the situation you described occurred very often in any game I run. I would definitely nix it in the bud as soon as it did.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 878993, member: 5834"] [b]Re[/b] Common sense and realistic, are two different things. It is a common sense application of the rule as in a sensible DM doesn't let a player do this. The DM looks at the series of AOO's and decides what seems appropriate. The AOO rule is there to allow a player to strike an opponent who temporarily drops their guard during a combat sequence. Like when a person uses a potion, leaving an opening for one of those many attacks that happen but don't hit to hit. (the interpretation for combat exchanges is a series of blows with your BAB determining how many effective blows you can attempt. As in there are 10 blows exchanged, but only 3 or 4 are going to be effective blows even at high level) That is what an AOO is. For the sake of simplicity, they determined that an unconcious person is not really engaged in combat, and that allowing a person to Coup De Gras that individual or hack at them with a severely lowered armor class was good enough. You can basically hack away at the person unimpeded. AOO's were unnecessary because they weren't really doing anything to provoke them and for the most part, the active combatant could just walk up and hack them do death. Do you really need a whole bunch of extra AOO's to hack apart an unconcious person? This is where you as a DM decide that the feat choices of said player have allowed them to abuse the rules, so you make changes. Why? The game designers in an RPG can only do so much. It is up to the DM's to arbitrate a rule that has gotten out of hand whether it is a combination of feats or a particular spell application that the game designers failed to take into account when designing the rules. If the combination of feats you suggest become a problem in the game, I am quite sure that they will errata a change or make a change in the next edition. I would be very surprised if the situation you described occurred very often in any game I run. I would definitely nix it in the bud as soon as it did. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
New Revision Spotlight: Attacks of Opportunity
Top