Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 456986" data-attributes="member: 1149">Re: Re: Re: Re: Removing AoO from D&Di never said motionless. i said standing, leaning with a dagger.what the rule does is to allow him to STOP me, whether i am a person or a stone golem weighing 10000 lbs or an insubstantial ghost he can neither see nor touch, right?What the AoO rule does is give him the OPPORTUNITY to stop me. if he can stop me, if he can attack and do enough damage, if he can tackle me with a grapple, and so on, then the AoO rule allows him that opportuinty.The difference between AUTOMATICALLY STOPPING MY RUn and ALLOWING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP MY RUN is apparently lost on some people, perhaps many people, but it does matter.We disagree greatly on that.If i had a 5000 lb stone golem running down a corridor (customized stone golem since they normally do not run) and someone told me that their 3' tall gnome with a 5 strength and a sickle stopped the golem in his tracks and forced the golem to take 5' baby steps, my first response would be "you are crazy."Wouldn't yours?Since i have played champions since the early days of 80s and since i have champions3-4-5 editions and some of second...i can say that, unless i missed something, then at least since 3rd and definitely absolutely uneqivocably in champions 4th and 5th (which covers mid-80's to current) they had no such rule. you are simply wrong, or you are citing an earlier edition.meanwhile, a lesson...VtM had a rule for jams.if you rolled a net botch on your attack roll you had jammed your gun.Unfortunately, since they did not bother to take 3 second to think this thru (wondering if some posters here learned their game analysis from WW?) they would realize what they had just done.The chance of getting a botch result on your to hit dice was  INVERSELY proportional to your chance to hit the target.So, it worked like this, if you shot at me and I dodged... you had a better chance of jamming your gun. if you shot at me and i did not dodge, you had a lower chance of jamming your gun. If you are fring at a close target, you have a lower chance of jamming your gun. if you are firing at a far target, you have a higher chance of jamming your gun.The primary overriding factor in determining whether or not your gun jammed was how hard it was a shot to make. Even your own skill with firearms had little effect, all it provided was a bell curveism.Now, just because they decided to publish a cockamamey poorly thought out rule that does nothing senseible, should we call it "not craxy?" Should we look to it for salvation and continue it?i dont think so!You might, but thats not my headache.For my games, shooting a target at 100' is not more likely to cause a gun to jam than shooting at a target 20' away.For my games, the gnome gets an OPPORTUNITY to do something to stop the charging stone golem of speed, but he does not get an "abstract" rule fiat to do so. (Though, if he could pick up a Fiat and throw it at the golem, it might stop him.)For my games, "abstract" does not HAVE TO EQUAL "nonsensical" or "crazy."ymmv and clearly does.</blockquote>

Verification