Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 885727" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>from my first post... where i laid out this notion."A normal guy would only be able to "move up" one attack, regardless of his iteratives... someone with combat reflexes would be able to move up as many attacks as he can make with a fulll round action." So, under my model the problem would never happen. Its only under the current and upcoming official model that yous AoOs rate is independent of your attacks per round.Not in my model, covered that in post 1. Only in the official model is this a "problem".Yes, absolutely, you need to think about what you need to do when you CHOOSE to use an AoO or not. If he wants to screen the mage, then he does not need to take that anti archer AoO.if he is a higher level fighter, he can take more.The situation is exactly like it is now, except that combat reflexes doesn't work independently of you level anymore, you don't get extra attacks from CR until you get them normally.Thats a difference, not a problem.There will be a great many difference in AoOs under this model in terms of their tactics and use. Mainly, they are not as powerful as they once were, or at least, not as frequent. They may be more powerful if the concentration-interrupt is in play. The limit to AoOS already established is your full attack rate. You cannot draw attacks from more than the next round. This was already covered. See above. CR gives you up to your full attack in AoOs. a TWF guy with them in hand could use his TWF.I think you are actually thinking it would frustrate your players.If your playera are frustrated by non-free things, then this rule would not serve you well.So far, most of the things you have pointed out were already addressed. Most were merely "so you mean this..." variety and the others were just misreads. Thanks for your help.[/QUOTE]

Verification