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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 879253" data-attributes="member: 259">I think this is an improvement, but could still use some work.First, I really think there needs to be a clause saying that when you have lost your dex bonus against someone, you do not threaten them.  This would handle the question of invisible opponents, sneaking opponents, blinded fighters, fluffed fighters, etc. Further, it would allow the flatfooted condition to be more simply defined:  flatfooted would simply mean that until your first action in combat, you're denied your dex bonus (instead of "denied your dex bonus and may not make AoOs).Second, Hypersmurf, I think your AoO-happy fighter example is problematic not because of the one-AoO-per-opportunity rule, but because of the feats Hold the Line and Karmic Strike.  I don't think it's good to combine 3.5 rules with 3.0 feats from non-core sources:  part of upgrading is re-evaluating balance issues of non-core feats.Remove those two feats (and add in exotic weapon proficiency:  spiked chain <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ), and you're down to three AoOs against the fool who, without knowing how to fight with his bare hands, attacks you bare-handed.Give the bare-fisted boxer the Improved Unarmed Fight feat, and you're down to one AoO.If the scenario happened how you described, I've got no problem with the idiot boxer getting smacked down.  If the boxer knows what he's doing, then he only gets hit once -- and that's how it'd work currently.********My problem with the old rules was exemplified in the Horse-and-rider scenario.  Imagine that, for some reason, a knight on a horse moves past you (a combat-reflexes dude).  Under the old rules, both horse and rider provoke an AoO for moving through your threatened space:  you may make an AoO on neither, one, or both of them.But now, let's say they turn around and ride past you again.  This time, whether you get an AoO depends on what you did last time.  If you attacked the horse last time, this time you can attack the knight.  If you attacked the knight last time, this time you can attack the horse.  If you attacked neither of them, this time you can attack both.  And if you attacked both, this time you can attack neither.That's doubly silly:  you shouldn't get two attacks on an opponent simply because the opponent is composed of a horse-and-rider team.  When they charge past you, you should only have time for one attack.  (And that's not even getting into situations where two or more people are riding a single horse).But worse, on the second go-round, your previous swing should not dictate what you can do.Under the new rules, I think the proper interpretation is that one attack per opportunity applies even if the opportunity involves two opponents.  In other words, when a mounted knight rides past you, that only provokes one AoO, which you may take against the horse or against the rider.I'd like them to clarify that obscure point.Daniel</blockquote>

Verification