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: 880567" data-attributes="member: 1149">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?</blockquote>

Verification