RANT: Attacks of Opportunity

[Psion]

So make the mage roll to hit, to put the spell where she wants...then roll a d8 if she misses, to see which way the error was. She'll learn, soon enough, that the party front-liners do not appreciate being blown up by their own side.

I find that it doesn't take any special rules for frontline fighters to foolishly charge into the zone of fire.

 

[Lanefan]

I find that it doesn't take any special rules for frontline fighters to foolishly charge into the zone of fire.

No, of course not. But in the heat of battle, the mage should not be able to guarantee the fireball will end right *there* and so if you take a 5' step back you'll be safe...

Lanefan

 

[billd91]

No, of course not. But in the heat of battle, the mage should not be able to guarantee the fireball will end right *there* and so if you take a 5' step back you'll be safe...

Lanefan

By the D&D rules, you pick the vertex (on the grid) where you are centering the spell. Maybe you should change that to targeting the square and then roll 1d4 to determine which vertex is the target. It's not much of a change but it puts 5' of play on each side of the area of effect.

I think I'd prefer that to grenade scattering rules.

 

[Lanefan]

By the D&D rules, you pick the vertex (on the grid) where you are centering the spell. Maybe you should change that to targeting the square and then roll 1d4 to determine which vertex is the target. It's not much of a change but it puts 5' of play on each side of the area of effect.

I think I'd prefer that to grenade scattering rules.

I just have 'em say where they want to center it (ignoring silly grids) then roll to see if it goes there. A middling roll gets it done, unless it's a very hard shot, but a low roll (or worse, a 1) can cause trouble. It's also possible (or should be) to fumble with an aimed spell - your fireball bead wrecks on the doorframe close to you, for example, instead of across the great hall where the bad guys are.

Lanefan

 

[Alratan]

On the hit points issue, it really depends on your play style - I, for example, describe high level characters as being like superheroes or manga/anime martial artists - a blow from a sword which would chop a lesser man in half from head to navel will literally just graze a high level barbarian, only just drawing blood. At this point the PCs do know they can run through a band of mooks with impunity, just as a comic book character would. In this sense, extra hit points are something just as real as a wizard's higher level spells, not some meta-game balancing mechanic.

I find this helps give something to warrior types in the faces of magic users flashiness. They are just as spectacular and superhuman as any mage, but they demonstrate it through feats of superhuman physical toughness and ability.

 

[evildmguy]

They don't actually realize they have hit points, but they realize that certain things that were perceived as dangerous back when they were neophytes aren't quite so scary now.

I am probably not being clear in my posts.

I have no issue with non lethal damage being something that a character could get better at taking and realizing they could take more.

However, I take umbrage that anyone at any point could look at a line of sword wielding "veterans" and say "I can get through that this time." Or that they could look at a Blade Barrier at any point say, that they can get past it.

You say this is metagaming and I have to say that pretty much everything you do in D&D or any other RPG that deals with quantifiable improvements in the character is metagaming. Every challenge is assessed differently as the character advances in level, skill, or whatever other measures the game system uses to codify improvements in the character. But that's not a problem. The problem comes when players either don't come up with ways to justify it in character or try to bring and use knowledge the PCs couldn't conceivably have (like "The DM likes to have 3 trick rooms in every adventure, this must be one of them.").

Actually, I think there are many games that have quantifiable improvements that don't force metagaming. Further, as I said in my previous post, I think more experienced characters should have more options. What I object to is the system's assumption that losing some hit points, i.e. being hit, is okay at high levels but not low levels. The game mechanics essentially set up one style of play at low levels and another at mid and high levels. That's what I don't prefer.

And that's the issue with metagaming. The player knows the character can take a hit from a blade or survive some attacks. However, when facing the "elite guard" of the BBEG, would the character make that same assumption? How about the standard problem I faced all of the time when DMing, guards and crossbows. It was impossible to arrest the PCs by having them face 1, 10, or 100 guards with crossbows. "Looking down the barrel" so to speak, meant nothing to the players, as they would gladly have their characters run away or rush the guards, knowing the guards wouldn't be of a level to actually hit them and the few that do, they could take. That kind of metagaming always annoyed the crap out of me.

In the case of increased hit points, the PC has learned his limits a bit more, has learned to turn aside more blows, whatever the abstract hit point system allows, so that he knows the actual risk of the maneuver he wants to try has changed dramatically since he first took up the blade. He'll still know that the maneuver might cost him, but he believes he can keep the coils of the grim reaper off him... something he doesn't think he could have done as a younger man.

How can it be said that they are "turning aside blows" when the weapon's base damage rating has not changed by any significant amount? Further, how over the top is it that a defending higher level character with no armor (so all variables except hit points go away) that used to be dropped in one blow can now withstand a dozen hits? Again, that's the style of game play that DND has, that I merely don't prefer.

I am looking at style and game play, not game mechanics. If there is a time when it would be dramatic and good for the story to rush past the front line and attack in the back, I am all for it.

I guess part of me is stuck on things that can be done that aren't reflected in the game rules. A person trying to charge past the ranks of well trained soldiers should be easily chopped down, because eventually the guys in the back ranks have nothing to do except beat the guy that made it to them. And, there are too many things that aren't represented by the game without it being a specific attack because the character can act with no penalty down to 1 hp. However, imo, each hit would slow the character down AND wear them down. And that makes it possible to be hit again and again. Unless a trip or other special move is used or the character runs out of movement, that doesn't happen. What happens then is it becomes a wargame which can only be played as well as each side understands the rules.

Again, that's not bad, just not what I prefer.

Think of a high school fullback. He knows that if he tries to get through the defensive line of a professional team, he'll probably get seriously hurt, including the possibility of broken bones and a concussion. Give him a few more years of experience and training and he'll probably think he can escape serious injury. But like that higher level fighter, he probably recognizes he can't keep it up all day... and neither can that higher level fighter. Eventually, the two will tire and be more susceptible to serious trouble. In the case of the fighter PC, that happens to be due to loss of hit points, bringing him down to the level in which he actually might be killed by a telling blow or two.

One the one hand, this is a very good example, and in many ways supports what I was saying. When it comes to non lethal damage, it is possible to look past it and keep going and for a person to realize they can take more than they once could. It also shows the more experienced characters have more options but still realize their limitations. One of the positive changes of 3.xE was non lethal damage and even if you were knocked out, it didn't take just one more point of damage to kill without it being a coup de grace.

On the other hand, it really isn't what I am talking about because it isn't dealing with lethal damage at all times. Again, it takes a special attack to trip. The character is assumed not to fall on their own until -1 hps. The game mechanics don't deal with ongoing blood loss, pain, missteps, etc. during this. If they get past one row of defenders to attack someone behind, that's one thing. When they can walk past four or five rows of defenders, then it just seems strange to me.

Part of the issue is that this is what DND is meant to do, heroic over the top fantasy. I think we can agree that a fall from 500' is fatal but it isn't necessarily in DND, by the RAW. So, the characters are meant to be larger than life. I get that and have had lots of fun with it. I merely think that after 12th level or so, it has gone too far in that direction for my own taste. I prefer a bit more realism, even in my heroic fantasy.

AoO start out being a great deterrent but at later levels are annoyances that aren't avoided anymore. Again, I think the idea behind AoO are great and think it is too bad that the style of game play changes so much in d20 such that they aren't as effective when dealing with high level characters.

Thanks for the reply!

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

That's been a problem in every edition of D&D. I hate the way mages can throw fireballs around with that manner of exaction. It's much like a soldier lobbing a grenade so that it blows the guy up trying to stab his buddy with a bayonet, yet leaving his buddy completely unharmed.

Wow! That's a very interesting and cool observation! I haven't had a problem with that, so I can only say that's the advantage of the magical fireball over a grenade? But I do get your point.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Back to the question of AoO . . .

I never found them to be hard and understood what they meant. I merely think it is too bad that d20 goes for more rules, rather than less. It is too bad they can't say that an AoO occurs whenever a threatened opponent does something that lowers their defense or takes up their concentration, and then leave it up to DM fiat to decide if and when it applies.

It seems as if the current incarnation of d20 is that more rules is good. If that's why diaglo, and others, prefer 1E or 2E, then perhaps I have dismissed the earlier editions too soon. Having said that, though, I am much older and somewhat wiser and don't think many of the problems that I had back then would happen now. That's just me, though.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[billd91]

How can it be said that they are "turning aside blows" when the weapon's base damage rating has not changed by any significant amount? Further, how over the top is it that a defending higher level character with no armor (so all variables except hit points go away) that used to be dropped in one blow can now withstand a dozen hits? Again, that's the style of game play that DND has, that I merely don't prefer.

How can it be said that they are turning aside blows? Well, that swing from the veteran is one that would killed a neophyte cold but it only costs the PC some energy/bruising/luck/whatever you choose those hit points to really mean in that case. Eventually, the PC will be unable to avoid those blows and will be just as killable as that low-level adventurer by a single blow...

That's all it is.

 

[shilsen]

However, I take umbrage that anyone at any point could look at a line of sword wielding "veterans" and say "I can get through that this time." Or that they could look at a Blade Barrier at any point say, that they can get past it.

Superman could. And that's precisely the point. D&D at mid-to-high levels is a superhero game with with fantasy trappings. A not-too-high level D&D PC is capable of falling hundreds of feet and walking away with full functionality, killing an elephant by punching it often enough, firing three arrows in six seconds and hitting a three inch wide mark at 1000 ft, etc.

You apparently want to play a game that doesn't work on a superhuman scale, but D&D does. If you don't like the superhero metaphor, consider mythology. D&D heroes are like Beowulf, who swims for days on end while wearing armor, or holds his breath for days and battles monsters underwater with his bare hands. You may not like it but that's D&D in its current incarnation.