RANT: Attacks of Opportunity

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) if its not on the master list, the answer is no.

Words to live by.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

What I am talking about, in terms of scaling, is that if we take two fighters, equip them exactly the same at 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th levels and have them fight, for some reason, the weapons are less effective as a percentage of damage than what they used to do.

I get the fact that skill of avoiding damage is built into the levels, hit points and AC of DND. I understand that is how DND has chosen to model that. I just find it too bad that the attack roll means less than the bonuses at higher levels. (I think it was Wyatt? who said that at higher levels, the modifier is more important than the roll, but at lower levels, the roll is more important.) It does show that the character is more skilled. I can't argue with that. I just don't like that other things are less effective for no other reasons.

I see your point and even agree with you (though not on the "bonuses more important than rolls at high levels"). I think the game is written to play that way, so if you're irked by that particular ruleset I can see why you'd look for something else. You can't just fiddle with base weapon damage without reworking a huge chunk of the entire system.

But this has sort of moved away from the whole AoO topic we had going before, and I'm honestly not even sure how we got here.

 

[Asmo]

You know, I'm always surprised when this thread makes an appearance, because I just don't see what's so complex about AoO's. I mean here's the list:

1. Moving through an opponent's threatened area.
2. Taking a non-combat action in a threatened area or in the same turn as you leave one with a move action.
3. Taking a specialized combat action in a threatened area without the appropriate feat.
Steve

Several posters -including me - finds that when an Enlarged monster with a reach weapon (or even without a reach weapon) enters the scene things gets a little bit complicated.

Asmo

 

[evildmguy]

I see your point and even agree with you (though not on the "bonuses more important than rolls at high levels"). I think the game is written to play that way, so if you're irked by that particular ruleset I can see why you'd look for something else. You can't just fiddle with base weapon damage without reworking a huge chunk of the entire system.

But this has sort of moved away from the whole AoO topic we had going before, and I'm honestly not even sure how we got here.

We are off topic, which is usually why I try and at least mention AoOs.

Btw, it isn't my quote but a designer at WotC who said that the bonus is more important at higher levels. I just can't find it. Not sure who said it or where it was. Ah, well.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Justin Bacon]

Btw, it isn't my quote but a designer at WotC who said that the bonus is more important at higher levels. I just can't find it. Not sure who said it or where it was. Ah, well.

There's always a 20 point range of DCs above the current value of your bonus that you will be able to hit. This never changes.

The only way in which the "bonus becomes more important" is the range of meaningful DCs which your character has completely mastered to the point where the chance of failure is nonexistent (skills) or nearly nonexistent (attack rolls and saving throws).

 

[Justin Bacon]

From levels 1 - x, let's call it 5 or 6, the attempt to get past several rows of mooks to get to the bad guy has failed. Suddenly, the player sees that his character has enough hit points to make it and does so. Yet, every time before this, the character didn't attempt this, and now they suddenly do. What allowed that first act? What allowed the first attempt? In my opinion, it is metagaming.

This argument applies to every single skill and ability in the game: There's a point at which the player looks at his character sheet and realizes that his character is now capable of running past bog-standard goblins in combat; leaping a 20' chasm; casting a fireball spell; lifting a 300 lb. boulder; safely swimming in rough waters; preparing a 1st level spell from a borrowed spellbook... All of these things are directly analogous to the character himself, aware of his own training and experience, realizing that he's now capable of doing things he wasn't previously capable of doing.

This is not metagaming.

The NFL is currently running a series of ads in which players talk about the first moment when they realized they were playing at a professional skill level. According to you, all these NFL players must actually be PCs whose players were metagaming!

Knowing that a character is "uber skilled" or a "tough s.o.b." is subjective and I can't see a real person suddenly deciding they can do it. At least, not without having a huge advantage. In the real world, that is armor. However, DND doesn't model armor realistically.

I don't know why you felt the need to be rude and insulting.

I'm not sure why you feel that my opinion that I wouldn't want to play in your unrealistic and, IMO, uninteresting game was somehow "insulting" or "rude". Perhaps you should review the concept of other people having different opinions than your own.

Can you see a Celt getting past a Roman army line to attack the general in the back?

No. But I wouldn't stat up the Celt as a high level character capable of doing such a thing, either.

If you asked me if a mythological Celtic demi-god, statted up as a 15th level D&D character, should be able to get past a loose line of average, mortal Roman soldiers statted up as 1st level warriors... Well, yeah. I've got no problem with that.

Something that allows the guards to guard.

You can guard against anything you can either:

(a) Take down in one hit; or
(b) Block entirely.

Don't forget that a human being in D&D completely controls a 5' x 5' block of space. The only way to get through that space without making an opposed check is to make a Tumble check of Olympic proportions (and I'm willing to concede that the Tumble check loophole unreasonably fails to account for the defender's combat skills).

Stand up for a second: Unless you've got a truly unusual physiology, your physical body doesn't take up a 5' x 5' space. So the game is, in fact, giving you a lot of control. Take a look at your hallway: It's less than 5' wide. So the game is, in fact, making it possible for you to completely block a typical hallway unless someone forces their way past you (using the Overrun or Bull Rush rules) or dodges past you (using the Tumble rules).

Similarly, if your Roman soldiers are standing in tight formation, I'd have to physically force my way through their space to get past them.

We aren't talking about a definite, trainable and measureable skill. We are talking about a body's ability to take damage.

Reread the hit point rules and get back to us when you understand why your characterization here is completely inaccurate.

 

[Justin Bacon]

I never said you'd run past the guy with the axe. In fact, I stated numerous times that in my game, we have rules that stop this. You've done nothing but insult me and auote me out of context this entire thread. I'll not bother replying to your drivel any more. Welcome to my ignore list.

JRRNeiklot: "It breaks my chain of disbelief to see a pc move in a round about way to get to his foe just to avoid AOOs."

Justin: "You don't believe that people in the real world try to stay away from the guy with a giant axe because they're afraid the guy with the giant axe might hit them?"

JRRNeiklot: "Sure, but as it stands, fighters will move away from the wimps to ENGAGE the guy with the axe."

You'll note that, right here, you misread my post: I was describing the people the PC is trying to "move around to avoid AoOs" as "the guy with a giant axe". You chose to interpret "guy with a giant axe" as "the foe you want to attack". Rather than get into a semantic debate with you, I rolled with your choice:

Justin: "Why would an experienced fighter want the wimps taking potshots at his exposed back while he's focusing his attention on the guy with the big axe?"

JRRNeiklot: "Just how do you avoid him and still kill him?"

You'll note that you, again, misread my post. Having gone with your assumption that you were trying to hit the guy with the axe, I was no long suggesting that you avoid them. In an attempt to get the discussion back on track, I went back to your original point:

Justin: "You seem to have lost the course of the discussion: You claimed that it shattered your sense of disbelief for a fighter to stay away from opponents he doesn't want to actively engage while approaching the opponent he DOES want to engage."

You proceeded to flip out:

JRRNelkiot: "I never said you'd run past the guy with the axe. In fact, I stated numerous times that in my game, we have rules that stop this. You've done nothing but insult me and auote me out of context this entire thread."

You'll note that I never claimed that you had "said you'd run past the guy with the axe". You follow with the non sequitur that you have "rules to stop this" in your game. And then you wrap up by saying:

JRRNelkiot: "Welcome to my ignore list."

To which I can only say: Good riddance. If this disjointed level of conversation is all you're capable of providing before running off in a snit, I'm sure that there's nothing substantive to be gained from having you reply to my messages.

We shall not even begin to discuss your ridiculous claim that a DM is quite capable of precisely describing the difference between 20 feet and 21 feet without miniatures, but when asked to describe the difference between 10 feet and 11 feet miniatures become an absolute necessity.

 

[Asmo]

What is that smell? Ah yes, it´s the smell of perm. banning!

Asmo

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

What is that smell? Ah yes, it´s the smell of perm. banning!

Indeed. Clearly I'm not the only one noticing either.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Pigeonholed?

No, because it has surprise.

What about when the pigeon flees combat?

Should it draw an AoO then?





​