Author Topic: Help win this RAW debate with DM  (Read 8594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2011, 12:35:34 AM »
Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?
Falling prone explicitly doesn't provoke AoOs, that's absolutely a rule.  It's not like you're just flopping to the ground.  A better example would be a modern soldier diving forward to the ground in order to benefit from a low hill or something to block bullets, it's a tactical combat maneuver.  As for the rest, there is no action, RAW, to fall asleep.  If you were to create houserules to reflect this action, then it would be appropriate to have it provoke AoOs.

@x-codes: You can't make up an argument, act like I made it, then refute it.  (Well I suppose you can, but it's not very effective)
My first point was my own argument, not yours.  The section on the action of falling prone has absolutely no bearing on other people's actions that cause you to fall prone, which is how your "slumping" rule was initially described to me.

My second point refutes your exact statement to me that, after getting run through by a spear, you are not prone from being knocked unconscious, but merely "slumping."  That's why it's in quotes, it's your own word.

My third point is just to clarify that making D&D more "realistic" requires rules to be changed.  You can't say that they're not rules changes because that's how things happen in real life.  I'll admit that you haven't said this yet, but it's a common argument that DMs like you try to make once their obnoxious houserules get debunked as not RAW.

Jopustopin

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2011, 12:49:06 AM »
In a Rules of the Game article here, Skip Williams seems to take the stance that the two cases for AoOs are the only such cases:

Quote
You can provoke an attack of opportunity in the D&D game in two situations, and here they are:

You provoke an attack of opportunity when you're in a square on the battlefield that a foe threatens and you leave that square.

You provoke an attack of opportunity when you're in a square on the battlefield that a foe threatens and you take some other action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Now, as for the helpless condition, I would argue that there's no fundamental difference between, say, a helpless animated suit of armor and a regular suit of armor. Neither can move and both have the same hardness and shape. However, under such a ruling, the former, by virtue of its designation as a combatant, constantly generates attacks of opportunity due to its inability to move, but anyone wishing to break the latter has to spend actions to do so despite the fact that the situation is nearly exactly the same.

Jopustopin DM:

Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?
It does not, since he is neither leaving a threatened square nor performing one of the actions listed in the table. However, the round after he does this, all eight of the monsters coup de grace him, since he's helpless.

As usual Bozwevial you make the strongest argument.  I agree with almost every single point you've made.  I even considered the absurdity that the difference between whether you get an AoO on something or not is simply by virtue of whether they rolled initiative.  But what is more absurd is the idea that a character can purposefully try to catch some Z's in battle and that does not provoke an attack of opportunity simply because the action isn't listed on the chart in the PHB. 

After reading Skip, I suppose that RAW you are correct.  If Skip is official (which it looks like it is) then I'm wrong.  You must act in order to provoke.  Even if acting is physically identical to not acting.  Such as a paralyzed person using a spell-like ability.  All I can do is point out that assuming Skip is right results in an Reductio ad absurdum.  IF the reason that actions provoke attack of opportunities is BECAUSE you are "letting your guard down." Which is the fluff used to describe why creatures provoke.  THEN why does the ultimate form of letting down your guard not provoke?  I have no response to a player that asks me these questions.  It's like when I played 4th edition and I had to explain all of the unrealism with "It's for balance reasons."  Which I suppose this is.

Thank you gents for showing me that what I ruled is a house rule.  I'll ask my players if they wish to continue using it.

Halinn

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • Email
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2011, 01:09:23 AM »
If you do wish to punish people who are helpless for whatever reason, just have one or more of the enemies use coup de grace.

Faithless tbe Wonder Boy

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2011, 01:22:05 AM »
If you do wish to punish people who are helpless for whatever reason, just have one or more of the enemies use coup de grace.

Maybe he doesn't want to provoke any Attacks of Opportunity ;)

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2011, 02:18:58 AM »
(late to the table)



You could look at it from the other other side.

Mobs are suicide to fight, so you don't.
You fly over them.
You divination where they are and go somewhere else.
You see them, you run away.

The DM will stop at some point.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2011, 02:46:26 AM »
Wait a minute, I think something marvelous just came from this thread:

AoO say that combatants are the only ones affected.
Thus, if you take the flaw non-combatant, you wont provoke attacks of opportunity.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

Jopustopin

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2011, 03:04:03 AM »
Wait a minute, I think something marvelous just came from this thread:

AoO say that combatants are the only ones affected.
Thus, if you take the flaw non-combatant, you wont provoke attacks of opportunity.

hahaha I'll pass it on to my DM.

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2011, 03:21:08 AM »

2) Intentionally falling prone is a free action.  Anything that causes you to become prone, such as becoming unconscious from being reduced to -1 or lower HP, still causes you to fall prone even though you don't take an action.  Also, chain-trippers really don't need this nerf.


Next time the DM springs a 50' pit trap on you, argue that you don't fall in until your turn...because, after all, why should you be able to suddenly move fifty feet as essentially an immediate action? 

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2011, 03:36:15 AM »

2) Intentionally falling prone is a free action.  Anything that causes you to become prone, such as becoming unconscious from being reduced to -1 or lower HP, still causes you to fall prone even though you don't take an action.  Also, chain-trippers really don't need this nerf.


Next time the DM springs a 50' pit trap on you, argue that you don't fall in until your turn...because, after all, why should you be able to suddenly move fifty feet as essentially an immediate action? 
There are also the Jump and Tumble checks involved, that cause you to land prone if you fail them.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2011, 03:45:50 AM »
To those who found a way to argue with me without insulting my intelligence
I seriously wasn't trying to insult your intelligence (if I got lumped in that group). I was just pointing out that strict RAW can lead to some weird results at the table.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

kremti

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
    • Email
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2011, 01:32:23 PM »
To those who found a way to argue with me without insulting my intelligence
I seriously wasn't trying to insult your intelligence (if I got lumped in that group). I was just pointing out that strict RAW can lead to some weird results at the table.

But didn't this thread already *start* with the weird result to begin with?  Sounds like Jopustopin's DM is OK with weird results as long as it's RAW.

-K

ImperatorK

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2011, 02:19:47 PM »
Use Iron Heart Surge on the sun. That'll teach him to use fluff as RAW.
"I'm done thinking for today! It's caused me enough trouble!"
"Take less damage to avoid being killed."
"In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."


[spoiler]
Quote from: Lateral
Or you could just be a cleric of an ideal. Like, physics and say that the domain choices reflect potential and kinetic energy.

 Plus, where other clerics say "For Pelor," "For Nerull," or "For Crom?" You get to say, "FOR SCIENCE!" *fanfare*

About me:
Quote from: dark_samuari
I know your game, you just want a magical Amazon.com to knock off those good ol' honest magic shops run by polite, old wizards!
Use Iron Heart Surge on the sun. That'll teach him to use fluff as RAW.

Damn you! You totally ruined my build that was all about getting epic far shot early and throwing my enemies into the sun!
[/spoiler]

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2011, 04:03:31 PM »
To those who found a way to argue with me without insulting my intelligence
I seriously wasn't trying to insult your intelligence (if I got lumped in that group). I was just pointing out that strict RAW can lead to some weird results at the table.

But didn't this thread already *start* with the weird result to begin with?  Sounds like Jopustopin's DM is OK with weird results as long as it's RAW he made them up.

-K

Fixed.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2011, 05:19:56 PM »
Use Iron Heart Surge on the sun. That'll teach him to use fluff as RAW.

Damn you! You totally ruined my build that was all about getting epic far shot early and throwing my enemies into the sun!
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

ImperatorK

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2011, 05:39:39 PM »
Sorry.
"I'm done thinking for today! It's caused me enough trouble!"
"Take less damage to avoid being killed."
"In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."


[spoiler]
Quote from: Lateral
Or you could just be a cleric of an ideal. Like, physics and say that the domain choices reflect potential and kinetic energy.

 Plus, where other clerics say "For Pelor," "For Nerull," or "For Crom?" You get to say, "FOR SCIENCE!" *fanfare*

About me:
Quote from: dark_samuari
I know your game, you just want a magical Amazon.com to knock off those good ol' honest magic shops run by polite, old wizards!
Use Iron Heart Surge on the sun. That'll teach him to use fluff as RAW.

Damn you! You totally ruined my build that was all about getting epic far shot early and throwing my enemies into the sun!
[/spoiler]

Nachofan99

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2011, 08:30:16 PM »
I wonder if your DM just ignores "Helpless Defenders" pg. 156 PBH.  Really, I don't even know where he got the idea into his head about AoOs. 

Jopustopin

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2011, 02:21:04 AM »
I wonder if your DM just ignores "Helpless Defenders" pg. 156 PBH.  Really, I don't even know where he got the idea into his head about AoOs. 

He didn't ignore "helpless defenders" on page 153.  He took the first paragraph on page 137 "Attacks of Opportunity" to indicate a general rule for the DM to use for situations not covered on page 141 "Actions in Combat." That being, whenever a combatant lets down her guard she provokes attacks of opportunity.  He was ultimately wrong, but in his defense he was quite clear on where "he got the idea into his head bout AoO."

It's not really that confusing of an issue actually.  Hope I helped you out.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2011, 04:58:26 AM »
It's not really that confusing of an issue actually.

Right, how he got the idea into his head was never the confusing part. How he had convinced himself that "lets down her guard" was any sort of official rules term or condition for perpetual provoking of AoOs - that was the confusing part.

Literally, on the same page he is given rules that detail what provokes attacks of opportunity. Right there on the SRD he could go and visit the full list of conditions that exist in 3.5 and read exactly what the rules definition of each of them are. He could have noticed that "Guard Down" is not included as a condition, but also that the definition of "helpless" (which is in there) never, ever states a) that the helpless creature's "guard is down" or b) that the helpless creature constantly provokes attacks of opportunity until they are dead.

The DMs primary argument was, "well, the SRD doesn't have much fluff, so clearly this is real rules text."  ???

Jopustopin

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2011, 05:50:13 AM »
It's not really that confusing of an issue actually.

Right, how he got the idea into his head was never the confusing part. How he had convinced himself that "lets down her guard" was any sort of official rules term or condition for perpetual provoking of AoOs - that was the confusing part.

Literally, on the same page he is given rules that detail what provokes attacks of opportunity. Right there on the SRD he could go and visit the full list of conditions that exist in 3.5 and read exactly what the rules definition of each of them are. He could have noticed that "Guard Down" is not included as a condition, but also that the definition of "helpless" (which is in there) never, ever states a) that the helpless creature's "guard is down" or b) that the helpless creature constantly provokes attacks of opportunity until they are dead.

The DMs primary argument was, "well, the SRD doesn't have much fluff, so clearly this is real rules text."  ???

 :beathorse

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Help win this RAW debate with DM
« Reply #59 on: August 15, 2011, 09:36:12 AM »
Jopustopin DM:

Imagine your the dungeon master.  One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn.  You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?  

Nope. They don't get to throw in a free attack because you fell over. They are able to kick your ass on their next attack though.
ALT+7 to make a •
Clean up your posts and people tend to react better to them.

My rewrites:
Mechanics
[spoiler]
Combat Expertise
Spell Resistance
Spell Schools
Combat Maneuvers
Armor and Shield Proficiency
BaB and Combat Feats
Skills (Hazard zone)
Epic Spellcasting
Poisons
Misc. Tweaks
[/spoiler]

There's RAI, and then there's RAW, and then there's "Hey, if I deliberately misread this look how powerful it is!" – Caelic