Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 879138" data-attributes="member: 1149">Re: Re[/B]</blockquote>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.We agree completely... but simple logic says that if a temporary or brief opening allows a free swing, then a more severe more prolonged opening should do so as well. Looking away from me to pop a potion ans swig it is NOT more exposed if i am swinging those many blows that miss than being held motionless or unconscious at my feet is. It should be MY CHOICE not your status that determines whether you can or cannot be treated as "in combat" by me.Yes, that is coreect and that is the decision that we are saying makes no sense. You should not get "immune to aoo" simply because you have less defenses.First, adding even more severe penalties to helpless people, to highlight that they are worse off or more exposed than a potion drinker is FINE. We are not arguing that CDG is a bad rule.Taking away the potion drinker's problem if he becomes unconscious is another matter. The helpless guy, by every descrition of what the AoO rule is supposed to simulate or represent says that he should get an AoO if i chose to spend one on him AND in addition there is the CDG rule for full attacks and such. The addition of CDG should not remove AoO.Do not agree?Let me give you a real case from last night.*****************The sorcerer got held, HELPLESS. There were plenty of foes within a 15' radius when his turn came up but just by dint of luck none within 5'. The sorcerer cast a silent teleport. Poof.Now, lets say the sorcerer was within 5' of the enemy. According to you he SHOULD not be getting an AoO normally because while his guard is down he is by definition helpless and out of combat.So if within the reach of a guy with a sword my helpless held and out of combat sorcerer casts a teleport spell silently... he would provoke an attack of opportunity. If, however, he just stands there motionless, he does not. This is because casting a spell "distracts" him from his defense?That makes no sense.***********************On the other hand, if you choose to say that "helpless = cannot provoke AoOs" then you have just created an AoO proofing tactic, albeit a dubious one.What makes more sense, though might not be balanced for now, is for loss of defense due to distraction or incapability to defend to BOTH serve as openings for AoOs. ********************The most meaty thing about AoOs that was not shown is the concentration skill definition.In D20M, a concentration check is required to complete ANY ACTION that provokes an AoO that causes damage. So, closing more than 5' through an enemy with reach means you take an AoO and IF THAT HITS you then make a concentration check to see if the damage stops you there. This grossly expands the role of AoO and concentration to preventative not just punitive and seriously impacts the importance of them. Unfortunately, in D20M that rule was in the concentration skill, not AoOs.[/QUOTE]

Verification