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: 917527" data-attributes="member: 6239">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.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.One method the decision is metagaming, the other it is good role playing.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.</blockquote>

Verification