Quicker than the Eye and AoO

So, treat as invisible or hidden, and require an appropriate Listen check to discover before allowing an AoO for an action that warrants it (pick up dropped weapon, drink potion, etc.). That would be going against the point of the feat though, imo. I think the intent of the feat is to disallow AoO's if they fail the spot check, period.

I think the point of the feat is to allow people to conceal actions, not necessarily in a combat situation. Example - The Princess Bride, where Vezzini distracts the Dread Pirate Westley long enough to switch the wine goblets.

It happens to have a combat application if you try to stab them while they're not looking.

-Hyp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hypersmurf said:


I think the point of the feat is to allow people to conceal actions, not necessarily in a combat situation. Example - The Princess Bride, where Vezzini distracts the Dread Pirate Westley long enough to switch the wine goblets.

.....and we all know how well that one worked.

In an effort to make this a useful post, doesn't that strike people as just another use of the bluff skill? What Vezzini did wasn't 'quicker than the eye' but 'behind the eye which is facing the wrong way'. I certainly don't think he needed (or had) superhuman dexterity to pull of that trick.

Edited to be useful...
 
Last edited:

.....and we all know how well that one worked.

Well, the switch worked just fine :)

In an effort to make this a useful post, doesn't that strike people as just another use of the bluff skill? What Vezzini did wasn't 'quicker than the eye' but 'behind the eye which is facing the wrong way'. I certainly don't think he needed (or had) superhuman dexterity to pull of that trick.

True, but the text of the Bluff skill only gives mechanics for feinting and hiding. QttE specifically allows you to conceal any partial action.

-Hyp.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicker than the Eye and AoO

hong said:

You don't have to know anything. The point of AoOs is that the defender drops their guard, and so is less able to defend against the attacker's regular attacks over the course of six seconds. It's not that the attacker gets any special attacks (although the mechanics play out that way).
Actually I think this is exactly the opposite of the situation.
An AoO is a special attack, and is not in any way part of your regular attack.
Visualising the AoO as part of the furious activity that a player engages in, is a nice way to think of it, but it's really just a way of fitting the attack into a particular perception of the D&D universe.
 

I agree with both sides. I can see an attack of opportunity being special in some instances, and being furiously random in others.

:rolleyes:
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicker than the Eye and AoO

coyote6 said:

Why couldn't you make a Listen check? A Silent spell is a spell with no verbal components; it doesn't eliminate the sounds you make pulling bat guano out of your spell component pouch, the sounds you make breathing, the whisper of those silly robes you insist on wearing, the sounds of those bottles of Foster's clinking around in your backpack, or any of the other myriad sounds you wacky Austrian wizards make.

Perhaps, but what would indicate that these particular sounds mean the wizard is casting a spell, as opposed to dodging, bashing you, or anything else you care to name? All the Listen check really tells you is that someone is there. This was not an issue; notice that in my example, I said that the fighter is already aware the wizard is around.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicker than the Eye and AoO

drnuncheon said:

"On your guard" does not necessarily mean furiously whacking in all directions with your staff in the hopes of catching someone unawares.

It also doesn't mean doing nothing, in hopes of getting them to reveal themselves.

However, you're starting to agree with me - if you're unaware of the target, you obviously can't make an AoO against them.

Um, that was always my position to start with. If you don't know someone is present, then you don't get AoOs against them. The question is what happens when you know someone is present, but you don't know exactly where they are or what they're doing.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicker than the Eye and AoO

hong said:


Um, that was always my position to start with. If you don't know someone is present, then you don't get AoOs against them. The question is what happens when you know someone is present, but you don't know exactly where they are or what they're doing.

Then you ready a action to attack the next thing that you sence (still requiering a listen check if they do not directly attack you)
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicker than the Eye and AoO

hong said:


The question is what happens when you know someone is present, but you don't know exactly where they are or what they're doing.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be allowing someone to constantly be making attacks on all the squares around them, which is what the 'pick a random square' method implies.

That sort of attack takes a feat, and you only get to do it once a round.

J
 

There is a published feat (Hide Spell, Relics and Rituals) which says, in essence, that spell that can not be seen or hear does not have a reflex save, baring uncanny dodge. Some people call the feat crap, and it isn't core D&D. At least it is one publisher's opinion.

As for QttE, it seems in most respects like a specialized/advanced version of feinting in combat. Think of football. They try to grapple you, you try to run around them. In a lot of cases, players "feint" others, run through "threatend" areas, and are not subject to "AoOs". Stupid example maybe, but it does show feinting in a combat like situation. QttE would be this sort of manuver but using raw speed rather than guile.

On the other hand, invisiblity/feinting/QttE is already powerful. Preventing all AoOs seems to make it even more powerful. If you like this as a 2nd level spell, maybe you shouldn't expand what you know they can do into what you think should do, just for the sake of balance.

Personally, I like the "No AoOs if you don't know exactly where they are and what they are doing." A fighter, in my view, only really swings when they want to or when there is a convient opening, unless they willfully decide to swing wildly in cases of invisible oppents.
 

Remove ads

Top