Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 911263" data-attributes="member: 6239">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.</blockquote>

Verification