Two questions about feinting in Combat
- Thread starter buchw001
- Start date
Dex, AoOs, Uncanny Dodge, and Combat Reflex do not make complete sense. You either house rule or ignore inconsistancies. Yes, this does belong in the rules forum. Yes, you should state what rules are offical and what are your changes to the offical rules to make more sense, ala haste/harm/ect. Hyp has stated the offical rule mechanics.
Here is how I deal with it: You must have your dexterity bonus in general to take an AoO. To AoO an invisble person, you must be aware of an oppent, know the location of said opponent, and know the opponent has provoked an AoO.
Under this rule, you can bluff a person and run past them. You cannot AoO an invisible person, unless you get a good listen check. You cannot AoO while you are climbing or running. You can not AoO if blinded. All this is not what would happen under a strict reading of rules. You can still AoO a person who is blinking, since you have your dexterity bonus in general, as with strict rules reading.
Combat reflexes allow you to take AoOs in some specific circumstances, where you can move but on bad footing (flat footed, climbing, running). Uncanny dodge doesn't allow you to make AoOs, as it does not allow you to keep your Dex bonus (under my rules) but actually gives you a dodge bonus equal to dex bonus in situations where you can move but are otherwise on bad footing (flat footed, climbing, running, invisible opponent).
3.5 will simplify AoOs offically, as they need it desperately. My system is simple, but that doesn't mean it is now or will ever be offical.
Here is how I deal with it: You must have your dexterity bonus in general to take an AoO. To AoO an invisble person, you must be aware of an oppent, know the location of said opponent, and know the opponent has provoked an AoO.
Under this rule, you can bluff a person and run past them. You cannot AoO an invisible person, unless you get a good listen check. You cannot AoO while you are climbing or running. You can not AoO if blinded. All this is not what would happen under a strict reading of rules. You can still AoO a person who is blinking, since you have your dexterity bonus in general, as with strict rules reading.
Combat reflexes allow you to take AoOs in some specific circumstances, where you can move but on bad footing (flat footed, climbing, running). Uncanny dodge doesn't allow you to make AoOs, as it does not allow you to keep your Dex bonus (under my rules) but actually gives you a dodge bonus equal to dex bonus in situations where you can move but are otherwise on bad footing (flat footed, climbing, running, invisible opponent).
3.5 will simplify AoOs offically, as they need it desperately. My system is simple, but that doesn't mean it is now or will ever be offical.
Kemrain said:
No, but it is implied by not being able to take AoOs outside of "combat".
Hyp said what he believed AoOs represented, and that is fine. But I think that interpretation doesn't work with the rules for AoOs.
A player can choose to take an AoO or not, and there is a fininite number you can make. You would expect wild swings to be nearly unlimited, so why is there a limit? Also, I found no offical reference to "choosing a square" when taking an AoO, so I have to believe it is a concious action. The quote Hyp provided is only meant to represent the lack one roll, one swing on each roll. An AoO might be a feint and then a real strike in the game world, but a single roll in game terms.
AoOs being deliberate actions are what prevent a spellcaster you are are protecting from being whacked by your "wild swings". Hyp's theory doesn't work for disiplined fighters (those who are good at combat) as it would mean hitting friends. There is no provision for this.
Ranged weapons not giving AoOs make sense in that ranged weapons are different than melee weapons. One swipe with a sword is much different than firing an arrow. I have never seen a need for distinction to be made in AoOs to explain this.
So, there you go. Pick the explanation you want to fit your game. Hyp's ideas will result in more AoOs in general but has holes like hitting things you don't know about. Mine makes invisiblity more powerful. Neither should destroy a game, but one or the other might make certain characters more or less powerful.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Game balance
Hmm? You won't find a reference that states "A ranseur gains a +2 bonus to Disarm checks made as part of an AoO", either. It's something that happens when you use a ranseur to disarm, whether it's an AoO or not.
When you make an attack against an invisible opponent you haven't pinpointed, you have to choose a square. An AoO is an attack. If you make an AoO against an invisible opponent you haven't pinpointed, you're making an attack against an invisible opponent you haven't pinpointed. Therefore, choose a square.
-Hyp.
Bah, there is no such thing as game balanceHypersmurf said:
Game balance
But if there is a limit for a game balance reason, I would prefer an explanation of AoOs that includes that limitation.Hypersmurf said:
I agree you can choose a square that you believe an invisible person is in and attack. AoOs are not standard attacks. You can fire a ranged weapon on a standard attack, but not on an AoO. AoOs must be triggered and you must choose to take them. How can something you don't know about trigger an AoO?
We agree you can not AoO a person sneaking by you outside of combat when you haven't dectected an invisible creature in the area. By strict reading of the rules, though, you should (assuming you are armed). My explanation accounts for this, but yours does not. Your explanation follows the rules in general much better than mine, which requires provisions for invisibility. What rules holes does my solution cause though?
Neither answer is perfect, so I guess every one just plays it like they want to.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Again, both of those reply on the "I see an opening, and I hit it!" model.
By the "lapsed defence" model, you're not making an extra attack - you're simply converting a cinematic swing with zero chance of hitting into a mechanical attack roll with a finite chance of hitting.
The decision whether or not to make that conversion is an out-of-character one, like deciding whether to use your Luck Domain power to reroll a die.
That's why I add the house rule tweak that you are considered flat-footed against an invisible opponent whose existence you do not even suspect.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf said:
Are you saying that character in the game do not know they are taking (and using up) an AoO? This would mean characters in game are not able to understand the tatics of opponents trying to waste a PCs AoO so they don't hit a caster, for example.
Even with luck domain, I tend to think of it as something the character "really wants" so different characters will be lucky in different ways. Likewise, I believe characters use the many of the names of the spells in the PH.
I believe the active theory of AoOs matches the characters expectations to some of the rules. I change the rest of the rule to fit the character's expectations.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
I could go along with that.
AoOs are a metagame concept. The in-game concept is "Drop your guard, risk getting hit".
The player knows that he can use his Luck Domain power to reroll a check once per day. How does the character know what number just came up on the d20, before he decides to use his power?
It's like how a 15th level wizard with 119,900 XP can cast Limited Wish, but a 16th level wizard with 120,100 XP can't. The player knows why, but how does the character explain it?
-Hyp.
