Author Topic: D&D 3.5  (Read 6272 times)

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2003, 01:02:46 PM »
it still has the distance. Try a wormlike creature, or any of a dozen other monsters. You can still hold your weapon/shield between you. I don't think your argument changes the essential problem. You're still engaged with the creature, yet it gets a free attack, even though you're actively fighting it.

42

  • Staff
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2003, 02:27:39 PM »
SE, your really not making a lot of sense. If the rules assumed that you didn't have your weapon or shield between you and the monster, than there would be a penalty to your AC during an AoO.

Also remember that in D&D a round is 6 seconds. By all logistics, the way combat is set up, things are moving much faster than they would in reality.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Fellfrosch

  • Administrator
  • Level 68
  • *****
  • Posts: 7033
  • Fell Points: 42
  • Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder.
    • View Profile
    • Fearful Symmetry
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2003, 02:33:32 PM »
I always figured combat moved slower in D&D than in reality. A trained warrior can only hit a guy once in 6 seconds? Come on.

And for the AoO thing, I don't think you're fighting a monster if you're spending your time running past it rather than hitting it. You stopping your attack in order to move, and that provokes an AoO.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." --Mel Brooks

My author website: http://www.fearfulsymmetry.net

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2003, 02:48:16 PM »
back when I fenced I could easly have a parley with another person that could easly be 10-15 attacks in 6 seconds (between both of us), but there wasn't a lot of movement.
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2003, 02:13:32 PM »
actually 42, you're nto making a lot of sense. I know what the rules assume. What I'm saying is that rules make assumptions that have more to do with rules balance than combat.

for clarification on the "6 second round" the only time it's "6 seconds" is when you have to keep strict track of time. And the assumption is that you are trading a lot of blows and swings, but that the number of attacks you have are the number of attacks that actually have a chance of doing any damage. You do a lot of attacks just to try out defenses and make it past them, trying to draw the opponent out.

That's what the rules assume anyway (except for my 6 second comments, that's practical game application).

I've measured it off and paced it. You can move sideways 30' in 6 seconds. It's not hard for me to imagine that a trained warrior can move that distance with a shield or weapon up to defend against attacks.

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: D&D 3.5
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2003, 07:45:35 PM »
Just to add 2 more bits:

I've read the combat section of the new book now, and I'm even less pleased. I was hoping there would be better wording in the actual rules, but no. In fact, the examples only make the idea  more  ludicrous

For example, if you enter the threat area of say, a troll, with a 10' reach, you don't incur an  AoO. But if you actually ENGAGE the troll by moving  in, then you do. I don't  see any sort of logic here. This  is one of the examples they use, so it's not like this is a too literal understanding of the rules.

Also, unarmed attacks provoke AoO, but unarmed touchh attacks by spellcasters do not. Why does a trained warrior provoke additional risk when  actually fighting when a non-combat trained wizard does  not? This, again, is something explicitly stated. No, it's not  new material, but it's bugging me really bad.

You can't even  circle an enemy you're dueling with (as he circles you) because you'll be provoking AoO from each other. What kind of combat is this? They say that you're doing a whole lot of weaving, ducking, and blocking, but from the rules standpoint you really ARE just standing there with your feet planted.

I think that there are good uses for AoO, one of the primary being against spellcasters, and by the time the spellcasters are any sort of real threat, AoO isn't even an issue due to defensive casting and the improbability that their concentration check will fail even by third or fourth level. But they've taken it  too far, it doesn't make sense and it's just more of a bother that adds more die rolls to a combat round