PDA

View Full Version : Attacks of Oportunity vs Paralysed Enemies



Slayn82
2009-12-29, 01:32 PM
Well, i just stumbled in this strange paradox of the game mechanics. So you can make AoOs against enemies leaving your threatened area or casting spells, because their atention is unfocused from the battle and they drop their guards. Fine. So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE, you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.

Skip Willians has entered a little in the subject in his colum a long time ago.
Attacks of Opportunity (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a)
Attacks of Opportunity (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a)
Of special note, in part Two, its said:

Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.
So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.
Things can get ugly for the helpless enemy very, very fast. For instance, according to the part Two of the article, if your enemy responds an action that provokes an attack of oportunity with something that causes AoO, the actions are resolved imediately. Also, from SRD


An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Well, lets compare with another interrupt favorite, Contingency


The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur.

So, an AoO is as Fast as Contingency by RAW, and can be caused logically by "helpless" condition, like the enemy falling unconscious. The second part in the Contingency description is just clarification that the casting time of the contingent spell is not considered for the effect.

So, if a wizard has an Contingency prepared to teleport him away when he loses consciousness and he is stabbed by a Fighter to -3 HP, he is teleported away by the Contingency while, at the same moment said Fighter stabs him again? So, by RAW, under those conditions we get a dead body teleported ?

Also, what good ways exists to cause "Helpless" conditions in enemies?

RagnaroksChosen
2009-12-29, 02:02 PM
Well to be honest doesn't a helpless person allow for a coup de grace... which meens you can just kill them as a standard or fullround or what not? so why would you want to make the AoO's

robotrobot2
2009-12-29, 02:14 PM
In regard to your teleport example, the mage will not provoke another AoO. Once the contingency is triggered, the wizard teleports. Since it is effectively and immediate action, it resolves precisely after the event that triggered it. No other actions can occur in the interim.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 02:14 PM
Well, althought thats not really the point... Because of Contingency, just to start. Also, it allows to dispatch a fallen enemy between a full attack. Well, action economy is very important.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 02:19 PM
In regard to your teleport example, the mage will not provoke another AoO. Once the contingency is triggered, the wizard teleports. Since it is effectively and immediate action, it resolves precisely after the event that triggered it. No other actions can occur in the interim.

i thought it resolves precisely BEFORE the event that triggers it.

@OP, you don't get an additional AoO against the mage you downed as he teleports, your assertion that you do depends on getting infinite AoO vs helpless... by the RAW you don't get ANY AoO against the helpless. You get an AoO against opponents casting a spell in melee, firing ranged in melee, moving in a threatened square, or attacking unarmed. While the AoO is resolved instantly, it is meant to simulate getting an additional "hit opportunity" during combat (remember, your attacks per round from BAB do not determine how many times you cross swords, but how many times you stand a chance of hitting).

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 02:24 PM
By RAW, you can get AoO against enemies climbing, justified by the restriction of movement. And other cases are on DM's call, with the RAW as guidelines. So, the "Helpless" conditions that are way more restrictive than most situations that grant AoO logically should grant AoO too.

cherez
2009-12-29, 02:28 PM
So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE, you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.


On principle of logic I have to agree, but I don't believe that's how the rules are meant to work, and it introduces some timing confusion, as you've demonstated.


Well to be honest doesn't a helpless person allow for a coup de grace... which meens you can just kill them as a standard or fullround or what not? so why would you want to make the AoO's

A coup de grace is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. AoO by contrast, are essentially free actions, so you can still use that standard and full action.

A coup de grace just means an auto-crit and a DC (10 + damage) fort save or die. It's possible for the enemy to survive that, in which case you could use the AoO to try to make the difference (very possible with combat reflexes).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 02:28 PM
Both the contingency and the condition of helplessness are reactions to the same event.

Contingency has no delay whatsoever.

Therefore, there is no possible point in time during which you will have a helpless target to AoO before the contingency goes off. Presuming, that is, that the contingency is keyed to the event causing helplessness.

Siosilvar
2009-12-29, 02:29 PM
Of special note, in part Two, its said:

Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.

So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.
Not so fast. The enemy is doing only one thing: being paralyzed. One AoO, then next person's turn.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 02:29 PM
By RAW, you can get AoO against enemies climbing, justified by the restriction of movement. And other cases are on DM's call, with the RAW as guidelines. So, the "Helpless" conditions that are way more restrictive than most situations that grant AoO logically should grant AoO too.

logic has no place in raw discussion. especially not to allow infinite free attacks by exploiting a bad mechanic of the RAW.

just as, if you insist on using a commoner railgun to move an item 1000 feet in 6 seconds, the last person to have said item can still only throw it for normal damage by the RAW... if you mix up RAW and logic you get "RAW lets you move it at obscene speeds, therefore logically it should do obscene damage" but you don't, you use either RAW OR Logic... where RAW there is no benefit to having moved it in obscene speed, and logic doesn't allow an item to be "given" more than once per round.

Signmaker
2009-12-29, 02:31 PM
Well, i just stumbled in this strange paradox of the game mechanics. So you can make AoOs against enemies leaving your threatened area or casting spells, because their atention is unfocused from the battle and they drop their guards. Fine. So, if he is freaking paralysed, and CAN NOT MOVE,|||||you must be able to make as many AoOs as you can against him or any other helpless enemy.


Justify this leap of logic in mechanical terms, or else your argument holds no water. Your current argument is currently using fluff to produce a mechanical effect. Seeing as the rest of your argument hinges on this logic, no need to talk about the rest.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 02:44 PM
@Tyndmyr: Neither AoOs have any delay. In my example both are imediate reactions for the same trigger. For one Contingency to act, an triggering condition must be fullfiled, and it acts by RAW (different from the ToS rules that are specific about this event) at the same time than the AoO.

@Siosilvar: How is that less severe than climbing? Or leaving another threatened square? Also, the continuous inactivity of the enemy could be viewed as an series of actions that provoke AoOs.

@Taltamir: Its not infinite free attacks, unless you can get infinite combatants to pass before the Paralysed target in one turn. Also, RAW states that the conditions listed are not all the possible situations. And it makes a lot more of Sense than many weird things, like commoner railguns or Anti - Osmium bombs. Its just one more instance where a Fighter can release his AoOs.


Justify this leap of logic in mechanical terms, or else your argument holds no water. Your current argument is currently using fluff to produce a mechanical effect. Seeing as the rest of your argument hinges on this logic, no need to talk about the rest.

If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

Edit: Anyway, i only intended to invoke RAW to argue that AoOs have the same priority than Contingency if they are caused by the same trigger.

And the Commoner Railgun makes no sense under common logic or RAW. Real craft persons make railguns in D&D with Walls of Iron and Permanent (Energy substitution:Electric) Walls of Fire.

Signmaker
2009-12-29, 02:52 PM
If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

Except that the types of actions that provoke AoOs are explicitly listed, and most of them are even presented as per the PHB table. Therefore you can't assume via fluff that your prospect works.

ericgrau
2009-12-29, 02:55 PM
Being paralyzed already sucks a bit much.

Eloel
2009-12-29, 02:59 PM
Except that the types of actions that provoke AoOs are explicitly listed, and most of them are even presented as per the PHB table. Therefore you can't assume via fluff that your prospect works.

The OP 'knows' being paralysed doesn't provoke AoO, he's just wondering why, from what I understood.

Maybe, as a mechanic, take as many AoOs as you wish (upto your normal maximum) against a helpless character?
So, AoO the sucker right before your next round, since they'll just rest.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 03:12 PM
@ozgun: Yes. Well, i used to play a lot of GURPS and 2nd Ed., so im used to put common sense in my games if it doesnt breaks too much game balance, and i suspect that the fear of it being too unbalanced probably is the reason why the game designers not listed as such by RAW.

So, i propose that as an optional rule.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 03:19 PM
the problem with AoO is that they are illogical to begin with... not the reasoning behind them, the implementation as an instant thing that doesn't consume time and happens on someone elses turn... so putting "logic" there to extrapolate more AoO conditions that the ones specifically listed by the RAW is a mistake. Especially when it is specifically used to further break the game.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 03:23 PM
Yes, thats the monopoly of the Casters.

See the point? When its about Casters, people are usually condescendent, but when its about physical feats (in the broad sense), its always restrictive because it will break the game.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 03:25 PM
no. I hold that celerity is just as game breaking.
don't go with an appeal to emotion please, justify your arguments.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 03:27 PM
@Tyndmyr: Neither AoOs have any delay. In my example both are imediate reactions for the same trigger. For one Contingency to act, an triggering condition must be fullfiled, and it acts by RAW (different from the ToS rules that are specific about this event) at the same time than the AoO.

Unlike say, MTG, there are no stacking rules for simultaniously triggered events in D&D. Therefore, you cannot conclusively say that the AoO happens first.

On the flip side, the fact that contingency has explicit text regarding it going off instantly tends to support the idea of no AoO. Specific overrides general, after all, and the contingency rules are much more specific than usual action order, and is explicitly overriding them.


@Siosilvar: How is that less severe than climbing? Or leaving another threatened square? Also, the continuous inactivity of the enemy could be viewed as an series of actions that provoke AoOs.

Continuous inactivity is not a series of actions, either by RAW or logic. Inactivity is not an action.


@Taltamir: Its not infinite free attacks, unless you can get infinite combatants to pass before the Paralysed target in one turn. Also, RAW states that the conditions listed are not all the possible situations. And it makes a lot more of Sense than many weird things, like commoner railguns or Anti - Osmium bombs. Its just one more instance where a Fighter can release his AoOs.

Commoner railguns also fail the RaW/logic test, in that they don't stick with one or the other. Anti-Osmium, ditto. We have no rules for antimatter explosions in D&D.

Sure, RAW may not always make sense...but if you try to break RAW by switching between it and "real world logic" randomly, you get even wierder stuff. Your opinion that your idea makes more sense than commoner railguns doesn't make it legit.


If an AoO is an breach that your enemy concedes to you in combat, an "Helpless" enemy is simply unable to defend himself and is open to all the gambits you can muster under your physical competence (number of AoOs) in one round. If this leap of logic makes no sense, well, than the entire AoO mechanic would make no sense.

No. A single action can only ever provoke a single AoO(assuming 1v1 combat here for simplicity). In the same way that moving through five threatened squares is no different than moving through one, D&D makes no granular interpretation of how helpless you are. Either you are defenseless enough to provoke a single AoO or you are not. Nothing else.

I see this as far more realistic than infinite AoOs.


Edit: Anyway, i only intended to invoke RAW to argue that AoOs have the same priority than Contingency if they are caused by the same trigger.

If you try to pick and choose RAW only where it benefits your argument, you can't expect others to take the non-RAW parts seriously.


And the Commoner Railgun makes no sense under common logic or RAW. Real craft persons make railguns in D&D with Walls of Iron and Permanent (Energy substitution:Electric) Walls of Fire.

Yes, the commoner railgun is filled with fail. That's why you shouldn't use it as a strawman to compare your ideas against.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 03:31 PM
Sorry, it was just an AoO.:smallbiggrin:

I dont think that everyone would like to adopt such a rule, but it does have its merits, like allow melee classes to be a little more strong and pack more punch without recurring to something out of the normal for them. Strenghtening their rules, per se. Since Casters are all about creating rules and exceptions, by their own nature.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 03:35 PM
Sorry, it was just an AoO.:smallbiggrin:

I dont think that everyone would like to adopt such a rule, but it does have its merits, like allow melee classes to be a little more strong and pack more punch without recurring to something out of the normal for them. Strenghtening their rules, per se. Since Casters are all about creating rules and exceptions, by their own nature.

Balance between melee and casters is a worthy goal, but I really don't see this as accomplishing that.

Seriously, are helpless casters with contingencies that common? And even if the contingency goes off, haven't you already beaten them?

The problems melee face vs casters mainly exist when those caster are not helpless and/or are not in melee range or otherwise not vulnerable to physical damage.

Dekkah
2009-12-29, 03:37 PM
I can see your point Slayn82, considering the fluff says AoO is giving an opening.
The problem with your idea is that it is would be extremly lethal for players. Enemies can use AoO. So if a player get to -1 (or paralysed), he will die almost instantly (suffer a lot) without even a chance to get help.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 03:41 PM
I can see your point Slayn82, considering the fluff says AoO is giving an opening.
The problem with your idea is that it is would be extremly lethal for players. Enemies can use AoO. So if a player get to -1 (or paralysed), he will die almost instantly (suffer a lot) without even a chance to get help.

that... you make it into a "melee vs casters" argument... it isn't. it is actually much more of a nerf to your melee characters.

Your caster is flying in the back with protection from arrows... your melee guy is in the front dropping to -1. He gets AoO to death instantly by your rules. This will result in a significant increase of melee player death, a minor increase in player deaths of casters and archers.

Besides which, it is a bad mechanic to "nerf casters" or "boost melee". There are far better ways of achieving either goal.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 03:52 PM
Well, actually i agree with you taltamir. But it highlights some brutal aspects of the game. So im more inclined to suggest/adopt it as an optional rule. I know at least one feat that does something similar, but it doesnt takes an AoO, and works more to prevent ressurection.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 04:03 PM
If you want a brutal optional rule, stick with going below 0hp = death. This system will basically ensure this result anyhow, since hitting a helpless player is generally pretty easy. Plus, it's a lot simpler and faster.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 04:10 PM
Yes, but there are the occasions where you have an enemy paralysed or otherwise held for one round, and then you slash him. Or when you make an heroic sacrifice to hold the BBEG for your companions to strike you and him. On those situations, having those extra attacks is nice.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 04:12 PM
Yes, but there are the occasions where you have an enemy paralysed or otherwise held for one round, and then you slash him. Or when you make an heroic sacrifice to hold the BBEG for your companions to strike you and him. On those situations, having those extra attacks is nice.

Wait, so if you grapple someone, your buddies get to AoO him?

This is sounding wierder and wierder. It also seems like it makes battlefield control even more powerful...and it's already considered the best option.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 04:22 PM
Wait, so if you grapple someone, your buddies get to AoO him?


Yes, held enemies are considered "Helpless" by the rules against people out of the grapple. But trying to hit someone in a grapple involve random chances, so you can end up hitting any of them.

Battlefield control is vital in any kind of battle, in any form. Im just all in favor of trying to do it without magic, if there is a way.

jmbrown
2009-12-29, 04:22 PM
Skip Willians has entered a little in the subject in his colum a long time ago.

Just as a little note, anything not in the errata isn't RAW and can be safely ignored unless you want to homebrew it. The FAQ isn't RAW and neither is Wizards' columns even by the actual creators.


So, you can keep hitting your enemy, since he is continuously dropping his guard.
Things can get ugly for the helpless enemy very, very fast. For instance, according to the part Two of the article, if your enemy responds an action that provokes an attack of oportunity with something that causes AoO, the actions are resolved imediately. Also, from SRD

By RAW, AoO's are only caused by two things: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action that provokes it. The helpless condition is neither a move nor an action. "Falling" unconscious is neither a move nor an action.

Now, if someone were to bull rush or use telekinesis (or any power that moves) on a paralyzed or unconscious creature that causes them to move through your squares (he could even fall from a great distance past you so long as you threaten the squares he falls from) you'd be able to get your AoO. As I said, AoO's are only provoked by actions and movement. Being helpless is a lack of action, not an actual action.

John Campbell
2009-12-29, 04:53 PM
Yes, thats the monopoly of the Casters.

See the point? When its about Casters, people are usually condescendent, but when its about physical feats (in the broad sense), its always restrictive because it will break the game.

You're not strengthening melee here. You're turning hold person into yet another save-or-die for casters to kill weak-Willed melee types with.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 05:00 PM
^: Well, grapple and ropes can do that too. We had that since 2nd Ed. just fine.

Skip Willians, while not being RAW, is giving an coherent interpretation of the rules, so thats just an argument of authority.

Anyway, lets go RAI then.

Anything that distracts you significantly from combat would cause AoO.
Here is the SRD Table (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Action_Types).

No actions class are listed as Delay and 5-foot step, and they dont provoke AoO. Both of those envolve staying aware of your surroundings, so its fine.

Now, someone who is making a dying friend stable, attacking unarmed, casting a spell, drinking a potion(standard actions) or controlling a frightened mount, picking an object, standing up or sheating a weapon(move actions) provokes AoOs even if they are aware of their surroundings.

In any of those actions, they are way more free to move than someone bound, held, unconscious, paralysed or sleeping.
And the point that an static target doesnt provokes/receives AoO but if you forcibly move it you can do... Well, thats simply a large hole of the RAW.

Think about it in our world. If someone is bound by ropes, im sure a trained martial artist would have no trouble kicking him at full speed (target is basically a glorified sand bag). Now if the target is someone with more freedom of movement, he can evade or otherwise turn difficult those attacks, at least enought to not be trashed so baddly.

Yes, that got a little disturbing. But its an effective illustration. So why would things happen that differently? Other than "because its just not written like that".

Damn, its my GURPS side.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 05:07 PM
In any of those actions, they are way more free to move than someone bound, held, unconscious, paralysed or sleeping.
And the point that an static target doesnt provokes/receives AoO but if you forcibly move it you can do... Well, thats simply a large hole of the RAW.

Why is it a hole in RAW?

Allowing it would lead to mechanical nightmares. I would think that allowing it would be far more of a hole.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-29, 05:10 PM
Yes, held enemies are considered "Helpless" by the rules against people out of the grapple. But trying to hit someone in a grapple involve random chances, so you can end up hitting any of them.


By what rules? Nothing in the grapple rules says that people are Helpless to outsiders, only that they lose their Dexterity bonus vs. attacks. And the random hit chance only applies to ranged attacks into a grapple. Even the Helpless condition doesn't mention grappling...though it does mention 'held'...Eureka! This explains the Standard Female Grab Area! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandardFemaleGrabArea)

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 05:12 PM
I see hilarious possibilities involving a wizard, centipedes, grappling, and coup de grace.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 06:33 PM
Glyphstone, after reading your post and checking the rules, i humbly admit the flaw of my argument about the helpless conditions and grapple. Being grappled can get you pinned, that is like being helpless, but its not. Since because being part of a grapple makes you lose your armor bonus to AC, and being pinned makes you being held imobile for 1 round. And while you’re pinned, you take a –4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. So in the end, same status as "Helpless", but it isnt. To try to solve it, better have a partner with a lenght of rope handy, to bind the target and make him helpless. Better yet, Manacles.

Or you can do things the hard way by RAW, grapple your target, win the resisted check to move half of your movement, and walk in and out of your allies threatened area to allow them to make AoOs. Work almost as well as pinning your enemy in my proposal, but is a little more dumb when you think about it in terms of the real world.

@Tyndmir: But Centipedes have only one bite attack. What is your angle? Im curious:smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:36 PM
Tbh, once you have it grappled, can't you just full attack it to death? I mean, it's not as if the AoO is typically that big of a deal at that point.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 06:40 PM
Combat Reflexes and Dex16- 22 is an average value for Fighters and Rogues from mid to high levels. We are talking about extra 4-7 attacks per round at full Attack Bonus. So my elucubrations.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:50 PM
Combat Reflexes and Dex16- 22 is an average value for Fighters and Rogues from mid to high levels. We are talking about extra 4-7 attacks per round at full Attack Bonus. So my elucubrations.

You only provoke once per action anyhow. So even if you moved them through say, 4-7 threatened squares, it's still only one AoO.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 07:32 PM
From SRD (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Attacks_of_opportunity):
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Well, usually enemies are retreating and not coming back imediately to threatened areas.

Alas, poor melee classes. Mr. Rogue with Combat Reflexes can hit 7 careless guys in a round with his rapier, making an ugly wound in each one, but he cant hit a guy bound by ropes or unconscious 7 extra times in a round. Because somehow the rules would be broken. And wizards would make an even better use of that ability than him, apparently. Im sad for him. They cant have pretty things. Even if you have to set it up in a hard way.

And people complain that dealing damage is underwhelmed, and that physical actions cant compete in offensive power with magic. If you want broken things, go with magic.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 07:55 PM
This isn't really a case of melee not being able to have nice things. This is a case of "Our tank just died in a single round because he failed his will save against paralysis."

You really, really don't want paralysis, grappling, etc to be that broken. The key to bringing melee closer to mages is to give melee more options. See also, ToB. Buffing options that both mages and the guys with pointy sticks can use isn't helpful.

Slayn82
2009-12-29, 08:51 PM
Fine, i see your point and concede. But i must add as my final statement that:

a) In Flavor and Logic, if not by RAW, the whole idea makes entirely sense, and could be implemented in the game mechanics, althought probably causing some unbalance. Could be fun in the right kind of campaign. Paralysis and Grapple are somewhat easy to prevent, with Freedom of Movement, Remove Paralysis and a bunch of other spells and items.

b) That while people will not even blink if you propose a new outrageous trick as a caster, they will look very closelly and protest vehemently if you propose anything for melee. I blame not the people, but the design philosophy of the game. In this point 3rd Ed. is diametrically oposite to 2nd Ed. where Fighters were rampant and mages had very hard/miserable lifes.

c) That despite not agreeing with my views, you people have read my posts and argued with comendable civility. Thats a very important point, props to everyone.:smallwink:

Thank you all, thank you very much.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 09:14 PM
Alas, poor melee classes. Mr. Rogue with Combat Reflexes can hit 7 careless guys in a round with his rapier, making an ugly wound in each one, but he cant hit a guy bound by ropes or unconscious 7 extra times in a round. Because somehow the rules would be broken. And wizards would make an even better use of that ability than him, apparently. Im sad for him. They cant have pretty things. Even if you have to set it up in a hard way.

Yes, you make a certain valid logical deduction, however it is not enough.

A. Logically, you can NOT in the span of 6 seconds hit the guy in front of you 5 times and 7 guys passing by you during those 6 seconds 1 time each.

B. Logically, hitting a bound and gagged person, is easier than hitting multiple guys running next to you.

C. Logically, if you could do the illogical thing described in A, than according to statement B, you could perform act C, which is to hit a bound and gagged person 12 times in a period of 6 seconds (full attack + 7 AoO against him)

Problem is; the logic chain requires the acceptance of an illogical starting point. One which is only accepted due to RAW. If you use RAW to introduce impossibilities as truth, than you must also avoid expanding on such impossibilities via logical assumptions that take them as truth.

This is like arguing:
1. "by raw I can move an object 6,000,000 miles in 6 seconds via a bunch of commoners..."
2. "by logic, an item that moves a million miles per second should have ridiculous amounts of kinetic energy"
3. "by logical extension of the RAW, certain classes should, as a balancing mechanism, be allowed to move an object a million miles per second and deal bludgeoning kinetic damage as appropriate"

Just because RAW allows a ridiculously illogal thing to happen, and logically there is some connection between it and another thing not allowed by the raw. Doesn't mean you should start extrapolating impossibilities based on said RAW.

You simply cannot mix logic and raw in such a manner.
Especially when the RAW in question is a completely illogical and impossible activity.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 09:27 PM
a) In Flavor and Logic, if not by RAW, the whole idea makes entirely sense, and could be implemented in the game mechanics, althought probably causing some unbalance. Could be fun in the right kind of campaign. Paralysis and Grapple are somewhat easy to prevent, with Freedom of Movement, Remove Paralysis and a bunch of other spells and items.
It makes as much sense as the commoner railgun. It takes an impossible raw assumption and extrapolates on it with IRL logic to gives an impossible outcome... which is horribly broken.


b) That while people will not even blink if you propose a new outrageous trick as a caster, they will look very closelly and protest vehemently if you propose anything for melee. I blame not the people, but the design philosophy of the game. In this point 3rd Ed. is diametrically oposite to 2nd Ed. where Fighters were rampant and mages had very hard/miserable lifes.
This is entirely untrue:
1. people here mostly consider casters overpowered and want to nerf them. They also oppose any new suggested "caster empowerment" trick because of the notion that casters are overpowered.

2. This is not a warrior boost at all
2a. casters have FAR more ways of making someone helpless
2b. far more ways of not being helpless
2c. and are far less likely to go to negative hit points and get AoO

So in every one of those 3 important ways (2a,2b,2c), this is a caster boost and a fighter nerf. And a bad one at that. One of our major objections to it is that it hurts caster the least of all class types.


c) That despite not agreeing with my views, you people have read my posts and argued with comendable civility. Thats a very important point, props to everyone.:smallwink:

Thank you all, thank you very much.

yes, thank you. This is very important.