Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5879101" data-attributes="member: 92511">Ok. *shrug* You don't want DM fiat. I don't have any issue with it. But I don't think saying "Here's an optional module you may incorporate into your play as desired" is advocating DM fiat.I suppose then, as counter, you could say that "I don't consider AoO/OA something that needs to be mechanically provided for." (? Wait. Think that fails my grammar skill check. haha. "needs to be provided for mechanically"?)Either way, I do not consider AoO/OA as being something that falls under the "simplest mode of play" framework for 5e's proposed modular/ everyone gets what they want/unification edition and, as such, is more than welcome and easily incorporated as an optional addition to the mode of play you would like to engage in...just as much as it can easily be my option not to use it in my game.True.Well, no. Obviously that would not be a corner case. Maybe I was unclear.We could say, ok scenario 1: 1 fighter with a wizard behind him in a 10' standard corridor. 2 orcs coming down the corridor...2 or maybe 3 goblins, 3 or maybe 4 kobolds. At least 1 orc or goblin, maybe 2 goblins or 2 of the 3 kobolds are engaged by the fighter. The remaining orc, goblin, 1 or 2 kobolds can move passed them and potentially attack the wizard.OR, I could say, in my games, kobolds are sneaky little climbing buggers very at home in tight spaces and easily pounce up on the side wall of the corridor and scramble on their clawed feet, at least for the 10 feet, to get passed the fighter, and they ALL can attack the wizard. Can the fighter take a swing or two at them as they go by? Sure why not. Do I need an AoO rule to tell me, as the DM, this "makes sense"? No.Or, I could say (as most parties did) that in the 10' corridor, the frontline is the human fighter and the dwarf fighter beside him. Neither orc nor any goblin or kobold can get passed both of them (each fighting side-by-side taking up 5' of corridor). The wizard is safe other than the possibility of missile fire if the attackers are so equipped.We could go on and on and on with "what if this or that." What if it's a 15 corridor, what then? What if it's bugbears instead of orcs or smaller creatures? What if the mage is actually in the third row, behind shorter party members he can cast over?That's the sort of thing I meant by "corner cases"/individual scenarios that a "rule" of AoO or OA (or anything else for that matter) cannot possibly hope to cover in their entirety.There is a modicum of, not "DM fiat" though I suppose it would be considered by some, but a modicum of "common sense" that the framework of the game must allow for, imho, moreso than "rules for X".What works in this attack/corridor may or may not work in the next. Having a module that tells me I must allow AoO in any/all situations of X works for some...doesn't necessarily work or "make sense" for others.   So, again, my hopes are for an optional module pertaining to all sorts of levels of complexity for melee, that can be applied as you and I and thecasualoblivion and that guy playing down the street can all get what we want from it. How can anyone, or rather why would they want to, argue against "everyone gets what they want"? How is, to borrow from JamesonCourage, "everyone can play what they like" a bad thing?If I come to play with your (and I don't mean you, specifically, Vyvyan, but you know, "someone else's") group, I can accept the game with whatever modules added as your group plays it...or not. And you/they are free to do the same coming to my table. No harm. No foul. Just fun for all.There's no reason this needs be so. The fighter can turn around? Attack the next wave and hope for the best for the mage? Change weapons/tactics? Everyone can run away? If the fighter is alone, as in the above scenario and he stops one orc and the other goes by, the fighter's doing his job as best he can...no reason to feel "useless."Or, maybe he's stepping into the middle of the 10' space and hoping both will attack him...which, "making sense" they both very well might (orcs loving their slaughter and all). When you're not playing "on a grid" there's no reason you have to be in "this 5' square or that, but can't possibly be in between."And there would be an optional addition to your game that you could make sure the DM doesn't have to do that. Other groups/DMs who have stipulated "this is how we're going to make things work" and/or who trust/like their DMs to make fair consistent rulings or whatever reason they want, really, don't have to use that module. Cool. Thank you. I totally respect that. And I can see what you're saying you want...and am not denying, nor hoping/wanting 5e will, deny you of it. I'm just saying it's not something that, for the style of play I and mine would like to play in 5e, must be in the core/basic/simplest level of framework of play.--SD</blockquote>

Verification