Two questions about feinting in Combat

[LokiDR]

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.

AoOs are in-game concept, hence the popularity of pole arms.

That stance makes any and all AoO based characters, like a glaive wielding character with combat reflexes, an artificial concept. They just get to hit more often? Characters know there is a benefit, else they wouldn't go through the "special training" to get the feat.

Luck domain can be represented, in game, by the character really wanting something to go right. The game rules behind that is a re-roll. There is a clear connection.

I also don't think the XP example works, because you can not de-level yourself by expending XP. So the 16th level character can cast limited wish, enough to put him to 14th level XP if he wanted, but he still needs 136,000 to gain 17th level. I'm not sure if it is a house rule or an interpretation, but it is the way I have always played it.

Any time the rules get in the way of game world functioning logically, it harms suspention of disbelief. Being able to cast a spell one day, and not the next is a good example.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I also don't think the XP example works, because you can not de-level yourself by expending XP.

That's right.

So the 16th level character can cast limited wish, enough to put him to 14th level XP if he wanted.

That's wrong.

"You cannot spend so much XP that you lose a level, so you cannot cast the spell unless you have enough XP to spare." PHB p151.

Luck domain can be represented, in game, by the character really wanting something to go right. The game rules behind that is a re-roll. There is a clear connection.

That's right. But it doesn't always work.

Sometimes the character really wants something to happen, and he rolls well first time - no need to expend the Luck power.

Sometimes the first roll fails, and the second roll succeeds.

Sometimes the character really wants something to happen, and both rolls fail. Luck power didn't work.

Sometimes the first roll fails, but the player has already expended the power for the day.

So all the character knows is that over a lifetime, he has slightly better luck than other people. "Once per day" is a metagame concept, just like "one AoO per round".

On average, over the course of a year, a spiked chain hits people more often per combat than a longsword does. But the characters won't describe it as "he already made an AoO this round". They just know that it's dangerous to charge in incautiously against a glaive or spiked chain.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

That's wrong.

"You cannot spend so much XP that you lose a level, so you cannot cast the spell unless you have enough XP to spare." PHB p151.

It's not wrong.

It's a house rule . Like I said, the level system shouldn't be so obvious in the game. Some characters should be identified as more powerful, but there should not be be any idea of the game characters about the specific time a level is gained.

That's right. But it doesn't always work.

Sometimes the character really wants something to happen, and he rolls well first time - no need to expend the Luck power.

Sometimes the first roll fails, and the second roll succeeds.

Sometimes the character really wants something to happen, and both rolls fail. Luck power didn't work.

Sometimes the first roll fails, but the player has already expended the power for the day.

So all the character knows is that over a lifetime, he has slightly better luck than other people. "Once per day" is a metagame concept, just like "one AoO per round".

On average, over the course of a year, a spiked chain hits people more often per combat than a longsword does. But the characters won't describe it as "he already made an AoO this round". They just know that it's dangerous to charge in incautiously against a glaive or spiked chain.

-Hyp.

You aren't always lucky, that is the nature of luck. The character does understand that when he really wants something to succeed, he has a much better chance (about double) than he normally does and that he can't rely on this more than about once per day. The character understands that this only kicks in when he "really wants" something, not on a purely random basis. So, the luck domain exsists as an in game concept - the cleric can "press his luck" as it were.

AoOs exsist as an in-game concept as well.

Example: A very strong fighter is guarding a door that the PCs need to get through and fast. The fighter is ready for combat. In a metagame concept, all the PCs delay until the highest AC/most HP character goes up, past the NPC and opens the door. He expects to be hit, but he can take it. The rest of the PCs then move through their friend, through the open door, and on to their objective.

How could the characters understand this? Under the "wild swing" theory, I don't know. We agree on the rules, but what about the explanation of the in-game action? If the PCs do not understand these tatics in-game, they would be down a very useful tatical option, which isn't right. The rules allow for it, so the characters in the game should be aware of it.

I can think of many examples where one side or another will attempt to cause some character to waste their AoO so they won't use it when it is much more useful. The provoked side can choose not to use the AoO to prevent this. But how do you choose or not choose to use a wild swing? In character it makes no sense, so in character tatics would suffer. Any characters who tried what happened in that example then aren't being clever or inventive, the are metagaming and being bad roleplayers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's not wrong.

It's a house rule .

All right, then, it's not wrong, it's irrelevant.

Like I said, the level system shouldn't be so obvious in the game.

"Shouldn't" isn't a rules argument, though. By the rules, without house rules intruding, it's an example of when the level system is obvious in the game.

By my reading of AoOs, electing whether or not to expend the character's single AoO attempt per round is the choice of the player when an AoO is provoked. The player decides whether or not to convert a cinematic swing with no mechanical chance to hit, into an AoO with a finite mechanical chance to hit.

That decision on the part of the player applies whether or not the opponent provoking the AoO is visible.

The same logic you made for the luck domain - "the character knows when he really wants something, it's twice as likely to happen" - can apply to AoOs. The characters know that if several people move past an opponent, odds are he can only slip a lucky shot through a lapse in the defences of one of them.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

"Shouldn't" isn't a rules argument, though. By the rules, without house rules intruding, it's an example of when the level system is obvious in the game.

We long ago determined, at least in the case of AoOs, that house rules are neccessary if you want to make any sense. We both have them. So now we need to evaluate the house rules and determine what they do to the game. My thinking causes me to change other rules, following the same methodology. Any person who believes the rules are always right is diluting themselves.

By my reading of AoOs, electing whether or not to expend the character's single AoO attempt per round is the choice of the player when an AoO is provoked. The player decides whether or not to convert a cinematic swing with no mechanical chance to hit, into an AoO with a finite mechanical chance to hit.

All character actions are by choice of the player. It is normally assumed that the character could make that decision, else it is metagame thinking. The character can not make the decision without knowledge.

If a PC walked into a room in a dungeon, the player immediately remembered the trap/puzzel from a different campaign, and proceeded to disable it, I would be annoyed as a DM. The character may not have had any idea. You are putting a decision not to AoO a person on the same level.

That decision on the part of the player applies whether or not the opponent provoking the AoO is visible.

One method the decision is metagaming, the other it is good role playing.

The same logic you made for the luck domain - "the character knows when he really wants something, it's twice as likely to happen" - can apply to AoOs. The characters know that if several people move past an opponent, odds are he can only slip a lucky shot through a lapse in the defences of one of them.

-Hyp.

Which implies concious choice on the part of the character, meaning it can not be effectly be done to an opponent that is not pinpointed.

If you use this logic, it is hard to justify hitting creatures you have not identified. I don't think the "he can only slip a lucky shot through a lapse in the defences of one of them." logic work with the wild shot theory.

Ok, so we know "wild shot" fits with more rules, and "active" fits the idea of an AoO as an in-character concept. Both sides house rule. So what are the implications of our respective rulings? Does one side or the other damage game play or balance? Game play should come before minor inconvinieces like something not making sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you use this logic, it is hard to justify hitting creatures you have not identified. I don't think the "he can only slip a lucky shot through a lapse in the defences of one of them." logic work with the wild shot theory.

I think it works exactly with the wild shot theory.

Or, as hong would put it, 'wabbit season!'

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

I think it works exactly with the wild shot theory.

Or, as hong would put it, 'wabbit season!'

-Hyp.

Ok, I may not understand that, but I can accepet it.

Duck season. FIRE!