Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tichrimo 11-06-07, 11:30 PM	I can't believe this hasn't come up in our game until now, but we couldn't easily put our hands on a definitive ruling... Does my AoO refresh on my turn, or at the beginning of the round? E.g. A, init=20 B, init=10 C, init=5 On his turn, A provokes an AoO from B. B takes his AoO; A completes his turn. B takes his turn. In C's turn, can B take an AoO?
PhaedrusXY 11-06-07, 11:49 PM	It doesn't really matter, as long as you do it the same every time. I'd say they refresh at the beginning of the round, not on your turn, just to make things simpler to keep up with overall.
StevenO 11-07-07, 12:00 AM	AoOs refresh at the begining of your turn. In the example if B takes an AoO on A's turn and takes its turn before C then B can definitely make an AoO during C's turn. Note that this would generally prevent B from making an AoO on A (if another is provoked) if one was used on C unless B has the Combat Reflexes feat. Once initiative order is set the actual initiative "value" is almost completely worthless unless someone else joins the fight.
BattleaxeField 11-07-07, 12:43 PM	Read page 138 of the PHB again. There is no such thing as the beginning of a round. When there is an exception, the rules explicitly state "until the start of your next turn" or something like that. There is no such stated exception for attacks of opportunity. Therefore, the answer to your question is neither. You can take another attack of opportunity after the start of the attacked person's next turn. At least that's how I play it, and I get the most AoOs in the party. And no, it's not that hard to keep track of.
mvincent 11-07-07, 01:35 PM	It doesn't really matter, as long as you do it the same every time. I'd say they refresh at the beginning of the round, not on your turn, just to make things simpler to keep up with overall.As discussed in older threads: that can cause problems (and isn't how D&D works).
mvincent 11-07-07, 01:36 PM	AoOs refresh at the begining of your turn.Correct
Tichrimo 11-07-07, 05:44 PM	Refeshing on my turn makes sense -- since I can't take AoO's while flat-footed, it basically "refreshes" for the first time on my first turn, and then every turn after that. Thanks all.
Orenmir 11-07-07, 06:10 PM	I've never heard so many opposing replies so quickly. 1. Refreshes at the begining of your turn. 2. Refreshes at the begining of the next round. 3. Refreshes one round after it happens. #1 seems easy enough. Although, it seems like it's too generous to the one taking AoOs. In this scenario, it's possible for a person to take 2 AoOs within the span of a round. In some cases, a battle can last less than a round -- it doesn't seem quite right for someone to be taking 2 AoOs. #2 seems logical. Although, a similar generosity can occur giving a person the ability to take 2 AoOs in a row -- one at the end of a round, and another at the begining of the next. Doesn't seem quite right either. #3 makes the most sense to me. After you take your AoO, you must wait a full round before you have the ability to take another. I think the whole idea of restricting AoOs to one per round is because nobody is really fast enough to do more than one in a 6 second period (a round), unless you have the Combat Reflexes feat -- and in that case, you are still resticted by your Dex mod. So, after an AoO, you should have to wait 6 seconds before you can take another.
mvincent 11-07-07, 06:13 PM	1. Refreshes at the begining of your turn.This is the correct answer in D&D. Of this I am absolutely certain. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound): "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round."
Orenmir 11-07-07, 06:28 PM	An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. If it refreshes at the begining of your turn, then you have the ability to make 2 AoOs before an single round has elapsed. That just doesn't seem right.
StevenO 11-07-07, 06:29 PM	I've never heard so many opposing replies so quickly. 1. Refreshes at the begining of your turn. 2. Refreshes at the begining of the next round. 3. Refreshes one round after it happens. #1 seems easy enough. Although, it seems like it's too generous to the one taking AoOs. In this scenario, it's possible for a person to take 2 AoOs within the span of a round. In some cases, a battle can last less than a round -- it doesn't seem quite right for someone to be taking 2 AoOs. snip. A person isn't taking two AoO within the span of a round. Without Combat Reflexes a characters "round" effectively starts the first time they come up in initiative and then a round goes until they get to go again. During that time they can generally only take one AoO. Without the Combat Reflexes feat or something similiar a character will never be taking more than on AoO between there turns in initiative. As a side note and contradictory to what I've just said there is another situation where I'd allow a character multiple AoO opportunities. If a character with the (greater) Cleave feat unused drops an opponent with an AoO I'll mark that AoO against the cleave feat and effectively give them back the ability to make an AoO. It may not be RAW but certain helps solve some of the problems that can come up.
Orenmir 11-07-07, 06:34 PM	COMBAT BEGINS Initiative Order: Bad Guy A Good Guy A Bad Guy B Good Guy B. 1. Bad Guy A provokes AoO form Good Guy A 2. Good Guy A kills Bad Guy A 3. Good Guy A attacks Bad Guy B 4. Bad Guy B provokes AoO from Good Guy A 5. Good Guy A kills Bad Guy B COMBAT ENDS It doesn't even last one round and Good Guy A got 2 AoOs. Does that seem like what RAW intended?
Marcus Majarra 11-07-07, 06:50 PM	It doesn't even last one round and Good Guy A got 2 AoOs. Does that seem like what RAW intended? As far as we know, yes. While your method has merit, it requires a hefty bit of bookkeeping, especially when you throw Combat Reflexes into the fray. Given that actual AoOs are not cyclic in nature (as opposed to every other action you can take), I don't feel it's a practical choice to rule in the way you presented.
StevenO 11-07-07, 07:46 PM	COMBAT BEGINS Initiative Order: Bad Guy A Good Guy A Bad Guy B Good Guy B. 1. Bad Guy A provokes AoO form Good Guy A 2. Good Guy A kills Bad Guy A 3. Good Guy A attacks Bad Guy B 4. Bad Guy B provokes AoO from Good Guy A 5. Good Guy A kills Bad Guy B COMBAT ENDS It doesn't even last one round and Good Guy A got 2 AoOs. Does that seem like what RAW intended? That combat has most likely lasted into the second round or at least one round past the surprise round. Otherwise this is the situation. 0. Start of Combat, all aware and roll initiative. 1. BGa provokes AoO for GGa. 2. GGa has not gone yet (is flat footed) and thus can't take AoO. 3. GGa attacks BGa or BGb. Continue as before. If your situation had started previously for GGa to take an AoO on BGa that means one hasn't been taken since GGa last wen thus the AoO for used against BGa is the one gained from LAST turn.
Marcus Majarra 11-07-07, 09:32 PM	That combat has most likely lasted into the second round or at least one round past the surprise round. This has no relevance. The start and end of rounds is relative to each acting character. In any case, his point still makes sense to a point: if AoOs are refreshed in a cycle that isn't based on when you take the AoOs, you can have a single contiguous round with more AoOs than you're entitled to. It's still far too much bookkeeping for my tastes.
Orenmir 11-07-07, 10:30 PM	2. GGa has not gone yet (is flat footed) and thus can't take AoO. Just because he hasn't gone yet, doesn't mean he's flat-footed. Let's say everybody was thrown into a gladiator pit -- ready to go and aware!
StevenO 11-07-07, 11:40 PM	If that is the case then initiative has already started and this isn't the first round of combat. Take another look at what flat-footed is by RAW. Two characters could stand facing each other with swords drawn and killing on their minds but until they decide to take action there is no combat and if it does begin both sides roll initiative with the loser being flat-footed until his turn comes up inspite of anticipating the attack.
BoringInfoGuy 11-08-07, 12:13 AM	Just because he hasn't gone yet, doesn't mean he's flat-footed. Let's say everybody was thrown into a gladiator pit -- ready to go and aware! Some of the people in this thread need to spend more time reading through their PHB. Actually, yes, just because someone hasn't gone yet, that does mean he's flat-footed. From the PHB glossary, pg 308 flat-footed: Especially vulnerable to attacks at the beginning of a battle. Characters are flat-footed until their first turns in the initiative cycle. A flat-footed creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. The penalty of being flat-footed represents the time between when the action starts, and when each character can react. In the gladiator pit example where everyone is aware and ready to go, it applies just as much as any other combat. Everyone is aware that combat is going to start, and soon. But someone is going to act first, and no one knows who that will be until everyone rolls initiative. He who goes first gets an advantage because of that little bit of time between action and reaction. The only significance of the aware and ready part of this scenario is that there is no surprise round.
Nom 11-08-07, 06:36 AM	PH pg 138: "a round ... usually means the span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round". That tells us that AoOs don't refresh at "round" marked by the "end of the initiative sequence". But it doesn't exactly tell us when they do refresh. However, many other abilities are measured to the start of each character's turn: stunning fist (PH pg 138 again), 1 round spells or actions, and so on. One could rule that once you make an AoO you can't take another until the start of the character's turn in which you made the AoO, but that seems like unnecessarily detailed tracking, so most people play 1/round abilities as being "start of turn to start of turn". As to Orenmir's example, I have two comments: (1) StevenO is correct - you (normally) can't make AoOs while flat-footed. (2) What the heck is Bad Guy doing to provoke so many AoOs?
Orenmir 11-08-07, 10:48 AM	Actually, yes, just because someone hasn't gone yet, that does mean he's flat-footed. Touche. You are correct. Can you believe -- 25 years of playing D&D, about a dozen different DMs (including myself), and too may campaigns to count -- I've never once seen this rule enforced? I think I deserve a slap on the wrist. And, all the Rogues I've ever played with deserve slaps on the wrists. Anyways, that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that a player should not be able to take 2 AoOs within a 6 second period. And using the "refreshes at the start of your turn" rule will allow that. Agreed? And -- I don't think it is "difficult bookkeeping" to keep track of the "refreshes one round later" rule. A fair player should be keeping track of when he takes AoOs himself. It's not that hard if you have half a brain (or a whole brain, I guess).
Merestil Haye 11-08-07, 11:28 AM	Anyways, that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that a player should not be able to take 2 AoOs within a 6 second period. And using the "refreshes at the start of your turn" rule will allow that. Agreed?Yes, but so does the "refresh at the start of your turn" rule. Or refresh whenever - it's an outgrowth of the fact that there is a refreshment time at all. If a creature (which does not have Combat Reflexes, and is thus limited to one AoO per round) acts on 16, AoOs refresh for him then. So the creature could take an AoO at 17, then refresh his AoOs and take another at 15. Indeed it's possible for him to take two AoOs on initiative count 16. There is no way round this at all. You just have to lump it or get rid of AoOs - which is more work than it's worth as the combat system needs a top-down rebuild if you do.
mvincent 11-08-07, 12:05 PM	The fact remains that a player should not be able to take 2 AoOs within a 6 second period. And using the "refreshes at the start of your turn" rule will allow that. Agreed?Only on the first round, and only if he is starts combat non-flat-footed or has combat reflexes... the former is not technically a listed option in D&D (i.e not covered), and the latter is expected to take more than one AoO per 6 seconds anyway. While I understand your solution, it requires considerable book-keeping* for little gain. It is also not what the writer's intended (and so would be a house-rule). * I know you believe it's easy, but having tried similar tracking... it was painful for my group. Let me ask: are you and your group actually using your proposed method right now? Your posts seem to imply that you're not. I've played with quite a lot of people, but I have never encountered your proposed solution/interpretation. Note that anytime D&D refers to something that can be done "once per round" they are refering to an ability that refreshes on your turn. This is fairly standard.
BoringInfoGuy 11-08-07, 04:43 PM	Touche. You are correct. Can you believe -- 25 years of playing D&D, about a dozen different DMs (including myself), and too may campaigns to count -- I've never once seen this rule enforced? I think I deserve a slap on the wrist. And, all the Rogues I've ever played with deserve slaps on the wrists. Anyways, that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that a player should not be able to take 2 AoOs within a 6 second period. And using the "refreshes at the start of your turn" rule will allow that. Agreed? And -- I don't think it is "difficult bookkeeping" to keep track of the "refreshes one round later" rule. A fair player should be keeping track of when he takes AoOs himself. It's not that hard if you have half a brain (or a whole brain, I guess). Is it really that hard to understand basic combat rules? Excluding feats and possible class abilities, a character can make one Attack of Opportunity per round. (Note that unlike in earlier editions, a round usually means the time it takes for an initiative to come up again.) Which means that a character can make one Attack of Opportunity for each time his turn comes up in initiative. Yes, it is possible for a character to get two Attacks of Opportunity in under 6 seconds. Not on his first round of combat, but on later rounds, sure. So what? It's still one attack per initiative. Assuming a classic party (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) is taking on a group of monsters. The fighter is in melee range of a goblin and an orc, both of which start provoking AoO's. The rest of the party is dealing with the other creatures. The initiative is as follows: Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 First round finishes with no Attack of Opportunities provoked. Second round starts: (Note that I'm using a very 2nd edition way of dividing up the rounds) Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, it looks like the fighter got two AoO's in one round. Actually, he merely got to use the potential AoO from the first round, and the potential AoO in the second. Or, to put it another way, across two rounds, he has been able to make two AoO's Third round: Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Note that across three rounds, the fighter has only been able to make 3 AoO's. Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, chooses not to attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, in round 4, the fighter chooses not to take the AoO. (Let's say the goblin turned out to be a sorcerer, and the fighter wants to interrupt the goblins spell casting). So, in round 4, the fighter has only taken 3 AoO's Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 By round 5, the fighter again appears to have taken two AoO's in one round. However, the fighter has only taken 5 AoO's after 5 initiatives. The only reason he was able to make two attacks this round is that he had an unused potential AoO from last round that came up before his initiative this round. There is nothing unfair about the AoO system. The only thing that causes the illusion is when you look at how rounds are divided in 2nd edition terms. If you look at things in a more 3rd edition style, it is less confusing. The 1st round does not start for each character until his initiative comes up, and does not actually end until his initiative is about to come up again. So, when the fighter was making that first AoO against the goblin, he was still in his first round of combat. At the very tail end of it, but still the first round. After his initiative came up again, he started his second round of combat. So when the orc provoked an AoO, the fighter could respond to it. But he couldn't respond to the goblin provoking another AoO after that, since he was still on his second round of combat. This was a long post, but I hope this clears up the issue.
Orenmir 11-08-07, 04:58 PM	This was a long post, but I hope this clears up the issue. There's nothing unclear. I understand the combat mechanics and the rules. What my point had evolved into was: Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ?
Toki_Wartooth 11-08-07, 05:21 PM	There's nothing unclear. I understand the combat mechanics and the rules. What my point had evolved into was: Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ?imho: yes to both.
Legdiwena 11-08-07, 06:31 PM	Player B wouldn't have gotten the first AoO ( the one before his turn) since he was flat footed until he took his turn.
Orenmir 11-08-07, 06:37 PM	Player B wouldn't have gotten the first AoO ( the one before his turn) since he was flat footed until he took his turn. Yes, I know... We're past that now.
BoringInfoGuy 11-08-07, 09:49 PM	There's nothing unclear. I understand the combat mechanics and the rules. What my point had evolved into was: Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ? Did it seem fair to you back in second edition when someone who had the worst initiative last round roll the best initiative the following round, therefore being able to attack twice in a row?* I've shown that a player can't get more attacks of opportunity than times his initiative as come up. The chance to make an AoO could happen at the beginning of a players turn, or near the end. But keep in mind that a player has no say on when an AoO is provoked, only on if he wants to take advantage of it. (Spells, feats and class abilities can create exceptions, of course.) It is the DM (typically), not the player, who decides when the player has a chance to take an AoO. So, do I find it fair to have a couple of AoO's happen in quick succession? Sure. And I find it much more fair than a DM denying a player the chance to take an AoO because it felt "too soon" after the last one. As for if it I think it fits the writers intention: From the PHB, page 138. Under the header "Actions in combat", third paragraph - emphasis mine. For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term "round" works like the word "month." A month can mean either a calender month or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day the next month. In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. So yes, as long as the player only gets at most one Attack of Opportunity in a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round, I think it fits what the writers intended. And if you suspect I'm haven't put any thought into the difference between what is written and what was intended , you might want to look at the section titled "The 4 Rule Versions" in my signature. --------------------------- *For those of you how didn't play second edition, you used to roll initiative each round. It was a D10 + weapon speed, with the highest roll going last - as best as I recall.
Marcus Majarra 11-09-07, 01:15 AM	While I'll grant you that AoO bookkeepeing for players is reasonably acceptable, even for characters with Combat Reflexes, it starts to get out of hand when the DM has to do the same bookkeeping for the opponents he sets on the PCs. When the party is outnumbered, surrounded, and left with little options other than provoke AoOs to escape, it's a pretty big hassle.
PenderGrass 11-14-07, 04:23 PM	Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ? I am not seeing what you are saying as being "2 AoOs" per round. This is not the case at all. Even if someone is able to get an AoO prior to their first initiative count, that does not necessarily equate to the same 6 seconds that start at their first initiative count. And it definitely isn't the same round that just began when the initiative count is reached. In fact, I would say the time-flow of combat is fluid enough to easily see the pre-initiative moments being the first 6 seconds of combat. Some people stand there dumb-founded, others react quickly and still others get partial actions (or AoOs). Therefore, no one is getting 2 AoOs in a single round. Regardless, since most people will be flat-footed prior to their first initiative count (i.e., standing dumb-founded), it really isn't going to come into play very often. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-14-07, 05:23 PM	I am not seeing what you are saying as being "2 AoOs" per round. This is not the case at all. Actually, it is the case. A round is measured from an initiative count to the next time the same count is reached. If AoOs refresh on your turn, it's possible that you make more AoOs than you're allowed within a single round. Let's say you''ve already acted in combat. Your initiative count is 14. On initiative count 18, you make an AoO. After that, on initiative count 14, your turn comes up and your AoOs are refrshed. Immediately after that, on initiative count 10, you make another AoO. This means that from the last initiative 18 to the next (i.e. in this single contiguous round), you made two AoOs, whereas you'd normally be allowed one. That's the point he was making.
Orenmir 11-14-07, 05:23 PM	I am not seeing what you are saying as being "2 AoOs" per round. This is not the case at all. Even if someone is able to get an AoO prior to their first initiative count, that does not necessarily equate to the same 6 seconds that start at their first initiative count. And it definitely isn't the same round that just began when the initiative count is reached. In fact, I would say the time-flow of combat is fluid enough to easily see the pre-initiative moments being the first 6 seconds of combat. Some people stand there dumb-founded, others react quickly and still others get partial actions (or AoOs). Therefore, no one is getting 2 AoOs in a single round. Regardless, since most people will be flat-footed prior to their first initiative count (i.e., standing dumb-founded), it really isn't going to come into play very often. :dragon: ***** Snippet from round 3 of combat (no-one is flat-footed)... I take an AoO just before it's my turn. I take my turn (my AoO refreshes). I take an AoO right after my turn. Only 3 characters have taken turns. In a battle with 5 characters involved, a round has not elapsed yet in my snippet. Yet, I still took 2 AoOs. This is RAW. I got 2 AoOs within 6 seconds of each other. RAW also states that "rounds" don't have a start or end, it's just a length of combat time. Therefore, you can say: I got 2 AoOs in 1 round. I guess I'm the only one that sees a conflict here.
PenderGrass 11-14-07, 08:14 PM	Snippet from round 3 of combat (no-one is flat-footed)... I take an AoO just before it's my turn. I take my turn (my AoO refreshes). I take an AoO right after my turn. Only 3 characters have taken turns. In a battle with 5 characters involved, a round has not elapsed yet in my snippet. Yet, I still took 2 AoOs. This is RAW. I got 2 AoOs within 6 seconds of each other. RAW also states that "rounds" don't have a start or end, it's just a length of combat time. Therefore, you can say: I got 2 AoOs in 1 round. I guess I'm the only one that sees a conflict here. Maybe if you are using an "overall" round as your frame-of-reference your worry might be justified. I would point out though that AoOs are measured by each individual's initiative count - not an "overall" round. Thus, it is easily seen that there are no "extra" AoOs happening. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 11-14-07, 08:22 PM	Actually, it is the case. A round is measured from an initiative count to the next time the same count is reached. If AoOs refresh on your turn, it's possible that you make more AoOs than you're allowed within a single round. Let's say you''ve already acted in combat. Your initiative count is 14. On initiative count 18, you make an AoO. After that, on initiative count 14, your turn comes up and your AoOs are refrshed. Immediately after that, on initiative count 10, you make another AoO. This means that from the last initiative 18 to the next (i.e. in this single contiguous round), you made two AoOs, whereas you'd normally be allowed one. That's the point he was making. Maybe, but it easy to see that you are not getting more than one AoO per initiative count to initiative count. For example, if your count is on 14: Initiative count 20 - 15, you take an AoO Initiative count 14 - end of round 1, take an AoO Initiative count 20 - 15, cannot take an AoO Initiative count 14 - take an AoO So, from a previous round on your initiative of 14 thru the end of that round and then on 20-15 initiative counts on the next round you are getting one AoO. No more. No less. You may place AoOs close together from one round to the next, but you are never getting more than one AoO per initiative count to initiative count. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-14-07, 10:14 PM	Your assumption only works when the initiative count in question is your own. As stated in my example, between initiative 18 in one round and initiative 18 one round later, two AoOs were made.
BoringInfoGuy 11-14-07, 11:55 PM	Your assumption only works when the initiative count in question is your own. As stated in my example, between initiative 18 in one round and initiative 18 one round later, two AoOs were made. Which is how a once per round abilities are measured. Would it make you feel better to call it once per time your initiative comes up? I honestly have a hard time seeing what is bothering you and Orenmir about this. After (and only after) each character's turn at initiative, he gets one - and only one - chance to make an attack of opportunity. It is not something that the player controls. A chance for an Attack of Opportunity could happen shortly after the characters turn, shortly before, or in the middle. Or, most likely, not at all. The only way that this even appears to be a problem is if you are trying to run 3rd edition combat while stuck thinking in 2nd edition. Cleric - 20 : Round 1 starts for Cleric Creature A - 18 : Round 1 starts for Creature A Rogue - 17 : Round 1 starts for Rogue Goblin -15 : Round 1 starts for Goblin Fighter - 14 : Round 1 starts for Fighter Orc - 13 : Round 1 starts for Orc Creature B - 10 : Round 1 starts for Creature B Wizard - 5 : Round 1 starts for Wizard Round 1 ends for Cleric Cleric - 20 : Round 2 starts for Cleric Round 1 ends for Creature A. Creature A - 18: Round 2 starts for Creature A Round 1 ends for Rogue Rogue - 17 : Round 2 starts for Rogue Round 1 ends for Goblin Goblin -15 : Round 2 starts for Goblin. Round 1 ends for Fighter. Fighter - 14 : Round 2 starts for Fighter. Round 1 ends for Orc Orc - 13 : Round 2 starts for Orc. Round 1 ends for Creature B. Creature B - 10 : Round 2 starts for Creature B. Round 1 ends for Wizard. 2 Wizard - 5 : Round 2 starts for Wizard. Visually, you can think of it this way: Clr CrA Rog Gob Ftr Orc CrB Wiz 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Left to right is initiative order, top to bottom shows when each character starts and ends each round.
Marcus Majarra 11-15-07, 01:09 AM	Which is how a once per round abilities are measured. Would it make you feel better to call it once per time your initiative comes up? I honestly have a hard time seeing what is bothering you and Orenmir about this. First off, this is not bothering me. I can see Orenmir's point, but consider it an issue that can be dismissed due mostly to the amount of bookkeeping taking that into consideration would be. Second, I understand how initiative and rounds work. The point Orenmir was making, which I find valid to a certain degree, is that you can indeed measure a single round where you can make more AoOs than your normal allotment for any given round. Your entire theory works based on the premise that you measure rounds based on each character's turn coming up. I have no problem with this way of thinking. However, keep in mind that, since AoOs are not cyclic in execution (as opposed to, say, standard actions), it's normal that you're able to go beyond the limits for a given round if you recycle the AoO at any time other than 1 round after executing said AoO. Here's a similar analogy: a character has just acted. How much time will be elapsed before that character gets to act again? Exactly 1 round. This means that you get to act once per round. With AoOs, it doesn't quite work that way. If AoOs were to recycle 1 round after being used, this entire discussion would be a non-issue, since this kind of recycling guarantees that no more than your usual allotment of AoOs is executed in any contiguous round.
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 01:49 AM	I think you are zoomed in too close. The AoOs are given a maximum of once per round (i.e., 6 seconds). At no point, is this violated with the current rule. Regardless of how close the two actions may happen - even if it were separated by one initiative count - there is never more than one AoO per round. I think the problem you are having is understanding what the term 'round' means. For further reference I point you to the PHB, page 138, first column, The Combat Round section, 3rd paragraph: "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term 'round' works like the word 'month.'" etc. etc. In other words, if I tell you that you can get a free DVD once per month and that it renews on the 14th of each month. Yes, you can go get one on the 15th and another on the 14th and tell yourself that you just got two free DVDs in one month. But, when we look at the entire year, you will still have only got one per month. :dragon: *****
DMDaddy 11-15-07, 02:33 AM	Oh my! My brain provoked an AoO while reading this thread. I think the opponent got two in one round. :D lol. Ok, I'm confused. What do the majority of DMs do? 1. Refresh at beginning of round 2. Refresh at beginning of players turn My rounds start at the point of the first acting creature. Everyone gets there alotted AoOs, refreshing after the first acting creature acts again, thus starts the 2nd round. I thought that was how everyone did it.
Merestil Haye 11-15-07, 06:13 AM	Oh my! My brain provoked an AoO while reading this thread. I think the opponent got two in one round. :D lol. Ok, I'm confused. What do the majority of DMs do? 1. Refresh at beginning of round 2. Refresh at beginning of players turn My rounds start at the point of the first acting creature. Everyone gets there alotted AoOs, refreshing after the first acting creature acts again, thus starts the 2nd round. I thought that was how everyone did it.No, that's the 3.0 rules; AoOs refreshed after the last creature in initiative order acted but before new combatants joined the fray. In 3.5 each creatures AoOs refresh at the start of their turn in the initiative sequence, the same point as running spells cast on their turn are checked for expiry. A creature without Combat Reflexes can take two AoOs on the same single initiative count of the same round if things fall out right. But since that is still two rounds worth of AoOs, this is not a problem.
Nom 11-15-07, 08:11 AM	A creature without Combat Reflexes can take two AoOs on the same single initiative count of the same round if things fall out right.I don't think so. In order for you to make the second AoO, your turn must start. If your turn has started, then you can't be on the same initiative count (assuming we break ties) as someone else. And without CR you can't take more than 1 AoO in a single turn (because you can't take more than 1 per your round, and the AoO refreshes across a turn boundary). It is possible to get more than one AoO per someone else's round, but the only ways to do this against a single target are (1) if they ready an action and thus split their round across yours or (2) they "provoke" an AoO out-of-turn (using a special attack on an AoO that provokes an AoO, opportunist, ...).
Merestil Haye 11-15-07, 12:25 PM	By "initiative count" I mean a single result out of the possible range of results for an initiative check. You might have three creatures all acting on a single count - say 16. These are put into an order by tiebreakers, but they all act on the same initiative count. The second creature in the order can take an AoO provoked by the first, then take one provoked by the third, because his AoOs have reset between the first and third creatures. (I have found that happens quite a lot in my games - liberal use of ready and delay means that quite often all the actions take place on one or two initiative counts, with ordering depending on who delayed until after which enemy or took a ready action prompted by which other combatant.)
weasel0 11-15-07, 12:59 PM	At the beginning of each individual characters inititive count.
Marcus Majarra 11-15-07, 02:28 PM	I think you are zoomed in too close. The AoOs are given a maximum of once per round (i.e., 6 seconds). At no point, is this violated with the current rule. Regardless of how close the two actions may happen - even if it were separated by one initiative count - there is never more than one AoO per round. I think the problem you are having is understanding what the term 'round' means. For further reference I point you to the PHB, page 138, first column, The Combat Round section, 3rd paragraph: "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term 'round' works like the word 'month.'" etc. etc. In other words, if I tell you that you can get a free DVD once per month and that it renews on the 14th of each month. Yes, you can go get one on the 15th and another on the 14th and tell yourself that you just got two free DVDs in one month. But, when we look at the entire year, you will still have only got one per month. The fallacy in your example is that, arbitrarily, you're making months start and end on a given day of the month. If I decide to measure a month from the 15th of this month to the 15th of the next one, you are indeed getting two DVDs this month. This kind of occurrence is possible exactly because there is no relevance to the beginning and end of rounds. Since no official beginning and end exist, it all depends on what baseline you use to measure the round. This is why, implicitly, the only way to guarantee that you get no more than your normal allotment of AoOs per round is to have each AoO refresh exactly one round after being used.
Toki_Wartooth 11-15-07, 02:35 PM	the only way to guarantee that you get no more than your normal allotment of AoOs per round is to have each AoO refresh exactly one round after being used.That sounds like a poor/difficult way to handle it, and not what was intended in D&D. Do you know of any group, including any that you might be in, that actually handles it this way as a house rule? Do they also handle other 'once per round' actions/abilities this way?
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 04:05 PM	The fallacy in your example is that, arbitrarily, you're making months start and end on a given day of the month. If I decide to measure a month from the 15th of this month to the 15th of the next one, you are indeed getting two DVDs this month. Yet, you still are not getting more than your 12 per year. Which equates to one per month. So, it doesn't matter how you break apart whatever you want. From the time I can make an AoO to right before it resets is one round. You can't deny that. In that time frame, one round, I get one AoO. Sure, you are looking at one way and applying a round and saying it is twice per round - but the round you are looking at is hardly important since the round that concerns my AoO is what is paramount here. Look at it this way, most people will agree that the sun rises and sets once per day, each. If the sun rises a little earlier on the next day, thus making it slightly less than 24 hours (also known as a day), are you going to start telling people that the sun rises more than once per day? Technically, you may be right - but common sense will tell most people that you are being far too analytical about it. This kind of occurrence is possible exactly because there is no relevance to the beginning and end of rounds. Since no official beginning and end exist, it all depends on what baseline you use to measure the round. This is why, implicitly, the only way to guarantee that you get no more than your normal allotment of AoOs per round is to have each AoO refresh exactly one round after being used. Or, alternatively, you can count the round in the same reference as what you are counting it for. Thereby avoiding the whole mess of trying to compare your apples to oranges. :dragon: *****
Greco 11-15-07, 05:05 PM	Touche. You are correct. Can you believe -- 25 years of playing D&D, about a dozen different DMs (including myself), and too may campaigns to count -- I've never once seen this rule enforced? I think I deserve a slap on the wrist. And, all the Rogues I've ever played with deserve slaps on the wrists. Uncanny dodge removes flat-footed on initative (as well as other).
weasel0 11-15-07, 05:23 PM	And Combat Reflexes lets you take AoOs even if you are FF.
mvincent 11-15-07, 05:30 PM	And Combat Reflexes lets you take AoOs even if you are FF(minus the normal one you're given per round).The underlined part does not appear correct.
weasel0 11-15-07, 05:40 PM	The underlined part does not appear correct. And you appear to be correct.... must just be the style of my 1st DM and it got stuck in my head as the "real rules." Or maybe a left over from 3.0? ... Either way, thanks, and fixed.
DMDaddy 11-15-07, 07:30 PM	No, that's the 3.0 rules; AoOs refreshed after the last creature in initiative order acted but before new combatants joined the fray. In 3.5 each creatures AoOs refresh at the start of their turn in the initiative sequence, the same point as running spells cast on their turn are checked for expiry. A creature without Combat Reflexes can take two AoOs on the same single initiative count of the same round if things fall out right. But since that is still two rounds worth of AoOs, this is not a problem. Ah, I must check the rules for my self, and.......hmm, I'm not seeing it that way. Still, others have mentioned the problems with TRACKING round results. I find it easiest to have AoOs refresh at the start of the combat round, not the players turns. It's already hard enough tracking other things like spells and such (thank the gods not everyone is casting spells). Not to mention that my players aren't good at tracking and therefore I have to do it. So I think I'll stick with my current method, it works well and the players understand it.
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 07:39 PM	Ah, I must check the rules for my self, and.......hmm, I'm not seeing it that way. Still, others have mentioned the problems with TRACKING round results. I find it easiest to have AoOs refresh at the start of the combat round, not the players turns. It's already hard enough tracking other things like spells and such (thank the gods not everyone is casting spells). Not to mention that my players aren't good at tracking and therefore I have to do it. So I think I'll stick with my current method, it works well and the players understand it. /lol Good thing you aren't at my table where we roll initiative at the start of each and every round. Seriously, there isn't much complicated about letting AoOs reset at the start of each character's initiative. It really is simple. Then again, THAC0 makes perfect sense to me. :dragon: *****
DMDaddy 11-15-07, 07:52 PM	/lol Good thing you aren't at my table where we roll initiative at the start of each and every round. Seriously, there isn't much complicated about letting AoOs reset at the start of each character's initiative. It really is simple. Then again, THAC0 makes perfect sense to me. :dragon: ***** I'm going to try both next session. I know some of my player's characters have +9s on their initiative rolls, they'd love the chance to be first over and over. I guess for AoO, I'll have to make a new mark on my tracking sheet just so my players don't abuse the change. Exactly were do the rules state it this way, or, should I say, where is it implied?
mvincent 11-15-07, 08:12 PM	Ah, I must check the rules for my self, and.......hmm, I'm not seeing it that way.I have taken advantage of that interpretation before (prior to me showing the round definition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound) to my group). With a mediocre initiatve results (and no combat reflexes), I could routinely put myself in a threatening position, take two AoO's (one after my turn and one before), then take myself out of a threatening position. In this way I could make an AoO each turn while only threatening half the time (allowing me to use a ranged weapon, or be in a safer place during those 'off' periods). I have no vested interest in how anyone plays, but refreshing on your turn is more consistent with the way the rest of D&D 3.5 functions. Conversely, refreshing everyone's AoO's at the same time could cause players to view rounds overall in an incorrect (3.0) light.
BoringInfoGuy 11-15-07, 10:27 PM	First off, this is not bothering me. I can see Orenmir's point, but consider it an issue that can be dismissed due mostly to the amount of bookkeeping taking that into consideration would be. Second, I understand how initiative and rounds work. The point Orenmir was making, which I find valid to a certain degree, is that you can indeed measure a single round where you can make more AoOs than your normal allotment for any given round. By this statement, you show that you don't understand how they work as well as you think. Your entire theory works based on the premise that you measure rounds based on each character's turn coming up. I have no problem with this way of thinking. This is not my personal theory. This is the way that Attacks of Opportunity work. However, keep in mind that, since AoOs are not cyclic in execution (as opposed to, say, standard actions), it's normal that you're able to go beyond the limits for a given round if you recycle the AoO at any time other than 1 round after executing said AoO. How many times have I pointed out that Attacks of Opportunity are not something the player controls? Naturally, I have the non cyclic nature of Attacks of Opportunity in mind. That is why they are something that you get the potential to take once per initiative, instead of being set to once per 6 seconds Here's a similar analogy: a character has just acted. How much time will be elapsed before that character gets to act again? Exactly 1 round. This means that you get to act once per round. It's your ability to take advantage of a provoked Attack of Opportunity that refreshes once per round. Exactly once per round. But if the player moved and attacked one round, but then chooses to attack and move, he actually got to attack twice in less than 6 seconds. It's six seconds from the start of one round to the next. So, to move took 3 seconds, and attacking took the next 3 (approx). But if the player attacks first on the next round, his attack must come up before 6 seconds have passed since his last attack. Therefore, he must have attacked twice in one round. This is a more accurate analogy of the system that sounds more fair to Orenmir, and which you find valid to a certain extent. With AoOs, it doesn't quite work that way. If AoOs were to recycle 1 round after being used, this entire discussion would be a non-issue, since this kind of recycling guarantees that no more than your usual allotment of AoOs is executed in any contiguous round. Actually, the current system guarantees that each player only gets to make one Attack of Opportunity per round. The only way that this appears to be a problem is if you are still trying to look at things from an obsolete perspective. --------------------- Everyone, due to an increadably heavy workload, I probably won't be able to post on the forums for a few days. I will check back as soon as possible, so don't take this as a post and run comment. Just don't expect any replies until about Sunday.
StevenO 11-15-07, 11:24 PM	If you have a hard time seeing how AoO work and believe that it is possible to get two in a true round what does that say about the provoking action? Ok, combat has been going on and you act at initiative count 15. At 16 the wizard standing next to you tries to cast a spell defensively and fails allowing you an AoO which you take. Your turn comes up and you finish you smackdown of the wizard. On turn 14 the warrior that had been trying to protect that wizard (and also basing you) gets mad and decides some payback is in order and decides to charge YOUR wizard who he happens to have a clear line too but is 40' (8 squares) away; this of course provokes an AoO right after your turn but say that the wizard is wielding a reach weapon and also gets an AoO so both AoO opportunities come at the same initiative count. If you believe the entire ROUND is 6 seconds that would mean moving that 40' all happens in a blink because it provokes AoO at both ends on the same initiative count. Just because an AoO takes effect at a certain point in time doesn't neccessarily mean it is the same point in time when the attack was taken over the course of you six second round.
Marcus Majarra 11-15-07, 11:44 PM	By this statement, you show that you don't understand how they work as well as you think. This statement is empty. I don't understand them well because I can see when someone makes a valid point that you do not see as valid? This is not my personal theory. This is the way that Attacks of Opportunity work. Care to back this up with evidence? How many times have I pointed out that Attacks of Opportunity are not something the player controls? Naturally, I have the non cyclic nature of Attacks of Opportunity in mind. That is why they are something that you get the potential to take once per initiative, instead of being set to once per 6 seconds Once per initiative has no meaning. Once per round means once every 6 seconds. That's how long a round lasts. The premise you're proposing, to be precise, is that you're allowed to one AoO between your current turn and the next. The closest thing to this kind of meaning is once per turn, not once per round. Once per round can validly mean that, within a 1-round window, an event can occur only once. The thing is: a 1-round window is not restricted to anyone's turn. It's your ability to take advantage of a provoked Attack of Opportunity that refreshes once per round. Exactly once per round. But if the player moved and attacked one round, but then chooses to attack and move, he actually got to attack twice in less than 6 seconds. It's six seconds from the start of one round to the next. So, to move took 3 seconds, and attacking took the next 3 (approx). But if the player attacks first on the next round, his attack must come up before 6 seconds have passed since his last attack. Therefore, he must have attacked twice in one round. This is a more accurate analogy of the system that sounds more fair to Orenmir, and which you find valid to a certain extent. Unfortunately, you have nothing to back your claim about the duration of actions that take place spontaneously. You cannot argue in this fashion and hope to be coherent because you're giving arbitrary values to something that inherently has none. The only way you can truly measure a round is through initiative counts. Between initiative count X and right before the next time initiative count X comes up, there is exactly one round. As such, once per round can only truly mean that it occurs once within such a time span. Actually, the current system guarantees that each player only gets to make one Attack of Opportunity per round. The only way that this appears to be a problem is if you are still trying to look at things from an obsolete perspective. I would appreciate if you were to stop criticizing my views with nothing other than unsupported claims. You state the current system guarantees that each player gets only one AoO per round, and I proved the contrary. Just because you choose to disregard a valid way of measuring rounds doesn't mean that anything that falls under that kind of measurement is invalid. Here's the reiterated proof: Initiative 19 Initiative 18: PC A makes an AoO ... Initiative 15: PC A's turn comes up (AoOs refreshed) Initiative 14: PC A makes an AoO ... Initiative 19 Initiative 18 ... Initiative 15: PC A's turn comes up There is exactly one round taking place between the first time Initiative 19 comes up and the second time it comes up. This is a fact. There are two AoOs being made by PC A during that round. That is also a fact. This is where the system CANNOT guarantee that no more than 1 AoO per round can occur, for a single character.
Marcus Majarra 11-15-07, 11:53 PM	That sounds like a poor/difficult way to handle it, and not what was intended in D&D. Do you know of any group, including any that you might be in, that actually handles it this way as a house rule? Do they also handle other 'once per round' actions/abilities this way? As I said earlier, while I understand and see the validity of Orenmir's claims, I do not find it to be practical, especially for DMs with their antagonists. It's excessive bookkeeping. Nonetheless, the rules are actually silent on the issue of when AoOs refresh, which is why his view is quite valid. Yet, you still are not getting more than your 12 per year. Which equates to one per month. Actually, you can indeed get 13 per year this way, which equates to more than once per month. Just imagine that, in late December 2006, you buy a DVD, then you buy a single DVD every month in 2007 at any time, except December 2007, when you choose to purchase a single DVD early in the month. From mid-December 2007 to mid-December 2007, you'll have bought 13 DVDs. From the time I can make an AoO to right before it resets is one round. You can't deny that. You're right. I cannot deny this, and this is the basis for Orenmir's original statement. The claim paraphrases as "the AoO refreshes one round after being made." If the sun rises a little earlier on the next day, thus making it slightly less than 24 hours (also known as a day), are you going to start telling people that the sun rises more than once per day? This example is regrettably invalid because days start and end at midnight. As if that wasn't enough, if you get close enough to the geographic poles, days end up lasting 6 months.
PenderGrass 11-16-07, 02:28 AM	Actually, you can indeed get 13 per year this way, which equates to more than once per month. Just imagine that, in late December 2006, you buy a DVD, then you buy a single DVD every month in 2007 at any time, except December 2007, when you choose to purchase a single DVD early in the month. From mid-December 2007 to mid-December 2007, you'll have bought 13 DVDs. First, why would I buy a DVD when I can get one free every month? Second, 14 Dec. -13 Jan. = 1 (1 total) 14 Jan. - 13 Feb = 1 (2 total) 14 Feb - 13 Mar = 1 (3 total) 14 Mar - 13 Apr = 1 (4 total) 14 Apr - 13 May = 1 (5 total) 14 May - 13 Jun = 1 (6 total) 14 Jun - 13 Jul = 1 (7 total) 14 Jul - 13 Aug = 1 (8 total) 14 Aug - 13 Sept = 1 (9 total) 14 Sept - 13 Oct = 1 (10 total) 14 Oct - 13 Nov = 1 (11 total) 14 Nov - Dec 13 = 1 (12 total) This example is regrettably invalid because days start and end at midnight. As if that wasn't enough, if you get close enough to the geographic poles, days end up lasting 6 months. Uh... try again... 1. the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day. 2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night. 3. Astronomy. a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis. b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun. c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day. 4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day. 5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day. 6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met. 7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day. 8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come. 9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day. 10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old. 11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered. 12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs. 13. light1 (def. 19a). —Idioms 14. call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day. 15. day in, day out, every day without fail; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, day in and day out. I count more than 15 ways to interpret the word "day." Including one that is a measure of 24 hours. Therefore, if the sun rose at 6am yesterday and then rose at 5:53am this morning, that is a span of time less than 24 hours. Therefore, you might be technically correct about saying the sun rose twice in that one day, but to do so would be about as inane as your assertion that you are getting more than one AoO per round. Technically, in a really inane and self-delusional manner, you might be correct. But in a real way it would just be sad if you went around telling people that. Kind of like how you are sadly mistaken about this whole 2 AoOs in a round thing. Say, you think there might be more than one way to interpret "month?" 1. Also called calendar month. any of the twelve parts, as January or February, into which the calendar year is divided. 2. the time from any day of one calendar month to the corresponding day of the next. 3. a period of four weeks or 30 days. 4. Also called solar month. one-twelfth of a solar or tropical year. 5. Also called lunar month. the period of a complete revolution of the moon around the earth, as the period between successive new moons (synodic month), equal to 29.531 days, or the period between successive conjunctions with a star (sidereal month), equal to 27.322 days, or the period between successive perigees (anomalistic month), equal to 27.555 days, or the period between successive similar nodes (nodical month or draconic month), equal to 27.212 days. 6. an unusually long period of time of indefinite length: I haven't seen him for months. Look at that... more than one way to interpret the word "month." Imagine that. And in the PHB they specifically tell you that a round is similar to the word "month" because it can be measured in many different ways - just as a month can. So, when you work a standard 40-hour/week job and someone asks how many days do you work per week, do you divide 40 by 24? or tell them you work 5 days a week? Because, right now, you really seem to be wanting to divide that 40 by 24. :dragon: *****
weasel0 11-16-07, 02:35 PM	GAH!! Does it matter? We have 2 views that, due to the ambiguous silence on behalf of the Wizards(imagine that... a flaw in the handbook-not rulebook), leave something up to player/DM judgement. Is one way more simple and in line with the other abilities? yes Is one way more complex but still within the "rules"? yes Can we stop beating the poor mule?
PenderGrass 11-16-07, 03:59 PM	Can we stop beating the poor mule? But, now that it's prone we all get +4 to hit it. :dragon: *****
weasel0 11-16-07, 07:01 PM	:rolleyes: LOL :evillaugh Well, okay. Might as well take advantage of it, eh? Of course, since it's dead, it's now an object and you can take a full round action to auto-hit. (Breaking and Entering)
Marcus Majarra 11-16-07, 11:53 PM	Second Your example is incorrectly used. You're not demonstrating that you're getting one DVD per month. It's demonstrating that you get one DVD per interval from the 14th of one month to the 13th of the next. These intervals are specific and arbitrary and only "illustrate" the idea of once per month because the interval you chose is one-month-long. In reality, what you're really demonstrating is that you'll never get more than one DVD from the 14th to the 13th next month. In terms of initiative, it's like picking a specific one-round timeframe, such as from your own initiative up to right before your next initiative, and using this as a guideline to rule on AoOs. It's a simple way to play this (in fact, this is how I play/DM), but in no way does it reflect the idea that you get only one AoO per round. As it is, the rules are quite silent on when AoOs refresh. The only way to guarantee that you get no more than one AoO per round, no matter what timeframe you pick, is to have the AoO refresh one round after executing it. I count more than 15 ways to interpret the word "day." Including one that is a measure of 24 hours. Therefore, if the sun rose at 6am yesterday and then rose at 5:53am this morning, that is a span of time less than 24 hours. Therefore, you might be technically correct about saying the sun rose twice in that one day, but to do so would be about as inane as your assertion that you are getting more than one AoO per round. Technically, in a really inane and self-delusional manner, you might be correct. But in a real way it would just be sad if you went around telling people that. Kind of like how you are sadly mistaken about this whole 2 AoOs in a round thing. Say, you think there might be more than one way to interpret "month?" While I admire your search for exactitude, your argument is one of semantics. Sure, there may be many ways to interpret the words day, and month. Since you brought up this example as an analogy to rounds, you need to stick to a definition that matches that of a timeframe of fixed duration. And if you're going to argue semantics, how many ways do you have to define the word "round" in D&D? PHB p138 states that a round "usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." In any case, I am not sadly mistaken as you claim me to be. I have demonstrated that if AoOs refresh on a character's turn, more than one AoO per round can occur, based on the PHB definition of the round.
Orenmir 11-17-07, 12:10 AM	Wow -- what have I done? This thread should be bronzed. I was merely "turning the cube." And we have now surely seen the cube at every possible angle. Let's just say the DM should choose which way he prefers. Ultimately, neither method is game-breaking.
Legdiwena 11-17-07, 02:44 PM	Have we looked at the inside of the cube yet?
Max Octavious Xavier 11-17-07, 07:44 PM	ohh, pretty colors inside the cube.... My group has always refreshed AOO at the begining of the characters action. a player should not be able to take 2 AoOs within a 6 second period.I understand HOW this idea works, but not WHY. This is a game where (with the right build) you can have a character draw and throw a dozen(or so, check the CO board for actual, but incredibly large, number of) daggers in 6 seconds* and you're gonna argue about 2 attacks in 6 seconds? *Feel free to insert any OPTIMIZED build here. Hulking Hurler, Pun-Pun, whatever.
Orenmir 11-17-07, 11:16 PM	Have we looked at the inside of the cube yet? We might need to smash it first.... without provoking an AoO. What initiative count is the cube's turn on? I bet it can find a way to take 2 AoOs in 6 seconds.
BoringInfoGuy 11-18-07, 09:14 PM	By this statement, you show that you don't understand how they work as well as you think. This statement is empty. I don't understand them well because I can see when someone makes a valid point that you do not see as valid? No, because you believe that a non valid point is valid. I understand what makes Orenmir think that there is the possibility of two Attack of Opportunities per round. But, as I've said, that is an illusion. Care to back this up with evidence? You've been given evidence - and not just by me - but you must not be paying much attention. Once per initiative has no meaning. Once per initiative is a term with a fairly self explanatory meaning. True, you won't find it in any of the books, but that is simply because I just came up with it. Once per round means once every 6 seconds. That's how long a round lasts. The premise you're proposing, to be precise, is that you're allowed to one AoO between your current turn and the next. The closest thing to this kind of meaning is once per turn, not once per round. Once per round can validly mean that, within a 1-round window, an event can occur only once. The thing is: a 1-round window is not restricted to anyone's turn. Sigh. Seems I have to quote the entire section. . . Compare your statement that I've italicized with the bolded section in the quoted section from the PHB. PHB, Pg 138. THE COMBAT ROUND Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round. Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character's turn come up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.) For almost all purposes, there in so relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term "round" works like the word "month." A month can mean either a calendar month, or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day the next month. In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. For example, a monk acts on initiative count 15. The monk's stunning attack stuns a creature for one round. The stun lasts through initiative count 16 in the next round, not until the end of the current round. On initiative count 15 on the next round, the stun effect has ended and the previously stunned character can act. Unfortunately, you have nothing to back your claim about the duration of actions that take place spontaneously. You cannot argue in this fashion and hope to be coherent because you're giving arbitrary values to something that inherently has none. The only way you can truly measure a round is through initiative counts. Between initiative count X and right before the next time initiative count X comes up, there is exactly one round. As such, once per round can only truly mean that it occurs once within such a time span. One of us is using arbitrary values in his examples, but it is not me. To what value shall we assign X? The underlined section from the PHB quote says that we could go from the top of initiative to the top of initiative, but the bolded section says that is not the usual way to measure it. What is the usually way then? Pick some number at random? Well, there are no extra rules detailing how to randomly determine that number, so that can't be it. How then? Well, there is the Monk's stunning fist example. What can we glean from that? First, for character actions, you count by the character's initiative, not anyone else's. So, hmm, I guess that one round window IS set to one character's turn. In this case, the monks. Second, the stun ability wears off just before the start of the monk's next turn. The monk could have made a stun attack, and then moved, or moved and made the stun attack. Regardless of how late in the round the monk made the stun, it wears off just before his next initiative. Which could be 6 seconds, but could also be less. So, what should we conclude from this? That one round window is set to the character performing the action. The time count to when an action wears off (and incidentally, when it can be used again), is the initiative count of the character who performs the action in question. I would appreciate if you were to stop criticizing my views with nothing other than unsupported claims. You state the current system guarantees that each player gets only one AoO per round, and I proved the contrary. Just because you choose to disregard a valid way of measuring rounds doesn't mean that anything that falls under that kind of measurement is invalid. Here's the reiterated proof: Initiative 19 Initiative 18: PC A makes an AoO ... Initiative 15: PC A's turn comes up (AoOs refreshed) Initiative 14: PC A makes an AoO ... Initiative 19 Initiative 18 ... Initiative 15: PC A's turn comes up There is exactly one round taking place between the first time Initiative 19 comes up and the second time it comes up. This is a fact. There are two AoOs being made by PC A during that round. That is also a fact. This is where the system CANNOT guarantee that no more than 1 AoO per round can occur, for a single character. Your proof merely shows how you don't really understand how to divide up rounds. All you've done is take a look at a moment of combat, assigned an arbitrary initiative count, and call that proof. If only someone had done an example using a more complete look at combat. Oh, wait. I did. Here it is again, with now with all creatures defined: Assuming a classic party (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) is taking on a group of monsters. The fighter is in melee range of a goblin and an orc, both of which start provoking AoO's. The rest of the party is dealing with the other creatures. The initiative is as follows: Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 First round finishes with no Attack of Opportunities provoked. Second round starts: (Note that I'm using a very 2nd edition way of dividing up the rounds) Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, it looks like the fighter got two AoO's in one round. Actually, he merely got to use the potential AoO from the first round, and the potential AoO in the second. Or, to put it another way, across two rounds, he has been able to make two AoO's Third round: Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Note that across three rounds, the fighter has only been able to make 3 AoO's. Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, chooses not to attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, in round 4, the fighter chooses not to take the AoO. (Let's say the goblin turned out to be a sorcerer, and the fighter wants to interrupt the goblins spell casting). So, in round 4, the fighter has only taken 3 AoO's Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 By round 5, the fighter again appears to have taken two AoO's in one round. However, the fighter has only taken 5 AoO's after 5 initiatives. The only reason he was able to make two attacks this round is that he had an unused potential AoO from last round that came up before his initiative this round. There is nothing unfair about the AoO system. The only thing that causes the illusion is when you look at how rounds are divided in 2nd edition terms. However, even if you keep looking at rounds from the definition of when the first character acts to when the last character acts, no character can have made more Attacks of Opportunity than number of rounds that have passed. Show me any point where you can see that the fighter has made more attacks of opportunity than there are rounds. Show me a way where, after the first round, the fighter has made 2 AoOs. Show me a way where, after the second round, the fighter has made 3 AoOs, and so on. And no, the fighter does not have any feats that would grant him extra Attacks of Opportunity. You can not. The only reason that looks like more than one Attack of Opportunity is that you yourself are actually the trying to restrict a 1-round window to someone's turn. Whoever gets the best initiative roll in the start of combat. Let's look at my combat example again, but this time, we'll look at the Cleric taking Attacks of Opportunity. Round 1 Cleric - 20 May now take AoO. Gnoll - 18 Takes AoO on Gnoll Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Round 2 Cleric - 20 May now take AoO. Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Takes AoO on Goblin Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Round 3: Cleric - 20 May now take AoO. Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Takes AoO on Orc Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Round 4 Cleric - 20 May now take AoO. Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Takes AoO on Kobold Wizard - 5 Round 5 Cleric - 20 May now take AoO. Gnoll - 18 Takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 With this example, it is clear that the cleric is getting no more than one attack of opportunity per round. You will of course note that in round 4, the Cleric took an AoO against the Kobold, the monster that is just before the Clerics intiative. Then, in round 5, the Cleric took an AoO against the Gnoll, which is just after the Clerics initiative. This is no different than the fighter getting to take an AoO against the Goblin, and then getting to take an AoO against the Orc. But now, the illusion of getting more than one Attacks of Opportunity per round is gone.
BoringInfoGuy 11-18-07, 09:18 PM	Wow -- what have I done? This thread should be bronzed. I was merely "turning the cube." And we have now surely seen the cube at every possible angle. Let's just say the DM should choose which way he prefers. Ultimately, neither method is game-breaking. Oh, I don't really care what method you use. The chances that we'll be in the same game are very low. The only thing I'm trying to show is what RAW is, and why it isn't actually giving more than one AoO per round. Play as you like. I just believe that you should understand the rules before you start changing them.
Marcus Majarra 11-18-07, 10:26 PM	How then? Well, there is the Monk's stunning fist example. What can we glean from that? First, for character actions, you count by the character's initiative, not anyone else's. So, hmm, I guess that one round window IS set to one character's turn. In this case, the monks. Second, the stun ability wears off just before the start of the monk's next turn. The monk could have made a stun attack, and then moved, or moved and made the stun attack. Regardless of how late in the round the monk made the stun, it wears off just before his next initiative. Which could be 6 seconds, but could also be less. So, what should we conclude from this? That one round window is set to the character performing the action. The time count to when an action wears off (and incidentally, when it can be used again), is the initiative count of the character who performs the action in question. This is true based on the premise that the character is performing the action in question on his own initiative. As it is, AoOs rarely take place during a character's own turn. Since we're necessarily dealing with one-round windows, the only way to guarantee the once per round idea is to start the window in question on the initiative during which the action is executed. Consider, for example, making a stunning fist attempt as an AoO. When do you recover the ability to make another stunning fist attempt? One round later. It stands to reason that you should also recover the ability to make the AoO one round later. Your proof merely shows how you don't really understand how to divide up rounds. All you've done is take a look at a moment of combat, assigned an arbitrary initiative count, and call that proof. If only someone had done an example using a more complete look at combat. Oh, wait. I did. Actually, my proof shows that I can pick a single one-round window and demonstrate that more than one AoO took place during that one-round window. As you stated yourself, a round usually means the time span between an initiative count and the same count one round later. In my example, I used the round starting at initiative 19 as proof. Can you deny that, in this round, more than one AoO was executed? You should also take note that since we're dealing with effects that can be used only once per round, it serves little purpose to actually delve into an entire combat. You don't need more than two round's worth of actions to display a single entire round. The problem with your entire example is that you're not demonstrating that you can't make more than one AoO per round. You're merely demonstrating that characters recover the potential to make AoOs once per round. These are two very different things. The entire AoO system lists nothing that indicates when you recover the ability to make AoOs. The only thing stated is that you can make only one AoO per round. The only way to guarantee this is by making sure that, for exactly one round after making that AoO, you cannot make another. The main failing with your example also lies in the fact that you're arbitrarily picking specific one-round windows and using them as proof. If you want to demonstrate that you'll never make more than one AoO per round, you need to pick all possible one-round windows you can imagine and show that in none of these more than one AoO is made.
Marcus Majarra 11-18-07, 10:41 PM	Some specific corrections: Now, it looks like the fighter got two AoO's in one round. Actually, he merely got to use the potential AoO from the first round, and the potential AoO in the second. Or, to put it another way, across two rounds, he has been able to make two AoO's In actuality, the fighter did make two AoOs in a one-round window. In every single one-round window except those starting/ending between those two AoOs, the fighter made two AoOs. Potential is meaningless; the fact is that the fighter made those AoOs. They took place within one round of one another. However, even if you keep looking at rounds from the definition of when the first character acts to when the last character acts, no character can have made more Attacks of Opportunity than number of rounds that have passed. Show me any point where you can see that the fighter has made more attacks of opportunity than there are rounds. Show me a way where, after the first round, the fighter has made 2 AoOs. Show me a way where, after the second round, the fighter has made 3 AoOs, and so on. And no, the fighter does not have any feats that would grant him extra Attacks of Opportunity. You can not. This kind of reasoning serves no purpose. Taking, for example, a fighter executing 4 AoOs during round 1, and 0 AoOs during rounds 2, 3, and 4, I can also state that the fighter made no more AoOs than the number of rounds elapsed. You lose all coherence when you stop looking at one-round windows to prove your points. The only reason that looks like more than one Attack of Opportunity is that you yourself are actually the trying to restrict a 1-round window to someone's turn. Whoever gets the best initiative roll in the start of combat. I'm not restricting the one-round window to anyone's turn. I'm looking at all the possible one-round windows exactly because I don't want to restrict them to anyone's turn. The simple truth is: the only way to prove that no more than AoO per round is made is by showing that in every single possible one-round window, no more than one AoO is made. In order to demonstrate how the system refreshing AoOs on characters' turns doesn't follow the idea that no more than one AoO per round is made, I merely need to show you a single one-round window during which two AoOs are made under this system. This is simple logic. It's not a matter of perception.
Dire_Rhino 11-18-07, 11:26 PM	Hrmph. Because I don't want to do homework: Consider this method of looking at the situation. Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 With 1 AoO left in this initiative count, Ftr delays action "to take AoO" First round finishes with no Attack of Opportunities provoked. Second round starts: (Note that I'm using a very 2nd edition way of dividing up the rounds) Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO. Fighter takes delayed-action AoO Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Ftr has no AoO left, and cannot delay Third round: Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack, as he has no delayed action AoOs. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 So, unless you wish to claim that delayed actions are not in the rules, we have a legal method for taking more than one AoO over any specified initiative count sequence.
weasel0 11-19-07, 01:13 AM	*monkey-wrench* The delayed action would move the fighters initiative count per RAW. DELAY By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point. You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. PS-Marcus-are merely playing devils advocate here? I'm getting this feeling that this is the only reason you're arguing this point or do you play this way?
Zinger2099 11-19-07, 08:00 AM	There's nothing unclear. I understand the combat mechanics and the rules. What my point had evolved into was: Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ? If that is the case then your question has changed. I'd like to refer you to the first page of Chapter 8: Combat of the PHB. It explains that while player's only get one chance to act (on their turn) the game isn't so linear, and that it is assumed that they are making multiple swings with their weapon as combat progresses, and only the actual hit you make connects. From that statement, I'd say yes, someone does have ample opportunity to make 2 AoO's in the amount of time suggested. Because their opponent left themselves open, and thus one of your 'many blows' that would normally have been paried, actually connects. This has probably been answered already a number of times, I only read the first page. :EDIT: My bad, this isn't on the fir page of Chapter 8, but it is in there somewhere.
Legdiwena 11-19-07, 11:36 AM	My head hurts.
BoringInfoGuy 11-19-07, 12:02 PM	*monkey-wrench* The delayed action would move the fighters initiative count per RAW. Right. Looking again at a part of the Combat round from the PHB page 138, we see: When a character's turn come up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.) The special Initiative Actions are Ready, and Delay. Both describe in detail that using these special actions change your initiative. However, the Attack of Opportunity has no mention of having to change, watch, or in any way take note of the initiative count where the AoO happens. The Attack of Opportunity is described as "Free" attack. If you look at the description of Free actions in the PHB, you'll see that they are actions that are considered to take no time, and can be done even when it is not your turn. Telling an ally to delay his action until after your turn, for example. PS-Marcus-are merely playing devils advocate here? I'm getting this feeling that this is the only reason you're arguing this point or do you play this way? If you look at his posts, you'll note that Marcus says that he plays the same way I do. The issue is that he believes that RAW is flawed, allowing a player to take 2 AoO's per round. I, in turn, believe that RAW (in this case) is not flawed, only his understanding of it.
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 12:09 PM	To be more precise, I believe the RAW to be silent, not flawed. In all honesty, I believe that the general interpretation of the RAW to be flawed, since this is the point Orenmir brought up. By allowing AoOs to refresh at any other time than one round after using the AoOs, it's a simple truth that more AoOs than normal can take place within a one-round window. Of course, the consequences of this are relatively minor, and the current interprettion is mostly a way to prevent hefty bookkeeping on the DM's part.
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 12:36 PM	Marcus - I think your problem stems from what you call a round. Assuming no Flat-footedness or Combat Reflexes. 19 18 17 - Fighter uses AoO 16 - Fighter's turn, refreshes AoO 15 - Fighter uses AoO 14, etc. 19 18 17 16 - Fighter's turn, AoOs refresh If you look at the round as being between 19 and 19, then yes, the fighter uses two AoOs between that round. But it doesn't matter whether you're looking at 19-19, 18-18, 17-17, or whatever. The only round that matters to the fighter is between 16 and 16. 19-19 is a round, yes - this is a fact. But 16-16 is also a round, and within 16-16 the fighter only used one AoO. So as someone earlier asked: Do attacks of opportunity refresh.. 1. At the beginning of the round or 2. At the start of the character's turn? The answer to that question is yes. Because they are the same exact thing. A character's turn is a round, regardless of whether he goes at the start of the initiative order, the middle, or the end. 1 round is equivalent to the time between two initiatives of the same number.
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 12:52 PM	...it's a simple truth that more AoOs than normal can take place within a one-round window. Only when you insist on not using the proper way of interpreting the RAW. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 12:54 PM	The only round that matters to the fighter is between 16 and 16. 19-19 is a round, yes - this is a fact. But 16-16 is also a round, and within 16-16 the fighter only used one AoO. Why is the 16-16 round the only one that matters to the fighter? This decision is arbitrary and has no actual relevance to any once-per-round effects. If you want to deal with AoOs, the one-round windows you have to select aren't the ones based on the acting character's initiative, unless the AoOs take place during the character's initiative. In actuality, you need to consider the round starting when the AoO takes place. Technically speaking, your AoO "refreshes" 1 round after using it. If you want a similar example, imagine using Stunning Fist as an AoO. Stunning Fist can be used only once per round (the wording is the same as with AoOs). When does the character get to use the feat again? Only when you insist on not using the proper way of interpreting the RAW. If it were the proper way to interpret the RAW, you should be able to easily provide me with a quote, from the RAW, that this is the correct interpretation. This discussion wouldn't even be if that were the case.
weasel0 11-19-07, 01:23 PM	...A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next action). A stunned character can’t act, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a –2 penalty to AC. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. ... So then how is someone who is stunned on an AoO just before your turn going to be stunned for one round if your next in the init? I don't think you can use SF as an AoO for this statement to make any sense.
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 01:51 PM	If it were the proper way to interpret the RAW, you should be able to easily provide me with a quote, from the RAW, that this is the correct interpretation. This discussion wouldn't even be if that were the case. I already have. Here it is again, The term "round" works like the word "month." A month can mean either a calendar month, or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day the next month. Comprende vous? One round, for AoOs, starts at the beginning of my round and ends just before it. In that time frame, I get one AoO. Simple. You are the one making it difficult. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 01:54 PM	So then how is someone who is stunned on an AoO just before your turn going to be stunned for one round if your next in the init? I don't think you can use SF as an AoO for this statement to make any sense. That's because the phrase in parentheses assumes the general use case: stunning during your turn. In reality, you can very well use Stunning Fist on an AoO, as long as you're making an unarmed strike. I already have. Here it is again, The term "round" works like the word "month." A month can mean either a calendar month, or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day the next month. Comprende vous? One round, for AoOs, starts at the beginning of my round and ends just before it. In that time frame, I get one AoO. Simple. You are the one making it difficult. Three things: 1) It's "comprenez-vous?" not "comprende vous?" if you wanted to use the French expression. Or, if you wanted to use the Spanish expression, you could've said "comprende usted?" 2) Where do you get evidence that, for AoOs, the round starts on your turn? 3) I understand what a round means. Get beyond this silly argument. The entire debate lies in where we start to measure. You're arbitrarily deciding to start on your turn, whereas I propose to start at any and all possible points in time.
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 02:12 PM	Why is the 16-16 round the only one that matters to the fighter? This decision is arbitrary and has no actual relevance to any once-per-round effects. If you want to deal with AoOs, the one-round windows you have to select aren't the ones based on the acting character's initiative, unless the AoOs take place during the character's initiative. In actuality, you need to consider the round starting when the AoO takes place. The 16-16 round is the only one that matters because it is the only round in which the fighter can act. If he acts at initiative 18 or 12, he is still acting within the 16-16 round, regardless of whether he acts before or after his initiative order. As per your other point, if a cleric casts bless on the fighter at initiative 15, then that spell begins ticking off at initiative 15. The spell will end at initiative 15 when the duration ends however many rounds later. Technically speaking, your AoO "refreshes" 1 round after using it. Your AoO refreshes 1 round after the start of your round and no other time. f you want a similar example, imagine using Stunning Fist as an AoO. Stunning Fist can be used only once per round (the wording is the same as with AoOs). When does the character get to use the feat again? He gets to use the feat at the start of his next round.
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 02:23 PM	1) It's "comprenez-vous?" not "comprende vous?" if you wanted to use the French expression. Or, if you wanted to use the Spanish expression, you could've said "comprende usted?" I actually wanted to - and did - use two languages at once, hoping against hope that maybe you might understand at least one of them. 2) Where do you get evidence that, for AoOs, the round starts on your turn? Where do you get evidence that it doesn't? Every single RPGA event I have gamed in has the AoOs reset on the initiative count of the individual. Not the combat round, as you propose. 3) I understand what a round means. Get beyond this silly argument. The entire debate lies in where we start to measure. You're arbitrarily deciding to start on your turn, whereas I propose to start at any and all possible points in time. This is not quite true. When I told you that the method I am using (and I might add, the method used by the majority of gamers) allows one attack per round, you proceeded to argue that it allowed more than one AoO per round. Which is moronic, since it clearly doesn't. I would also point out that the job of the DM is to be an arbiter. Arbitrary decisions are my job when I DM. If you wish to arbitrarily start your AoOs at some other point than the common interpretation, that is your right - just don't start trying to convince me that 1+1=3 and expect me to believe you, or applaud you for being a smart-alec. :dragon: *****
Sinis 11-19-07, 02:30 PM	I can't believe how complex some people are making this. Barring feats, you get one AoO between your actions. If you want to split hairs, you can say: You get one AoO between the start of your action and the start of your next action. Who cares about arbitrary round dividers? I realise the RAW is a bit vague on this, but couldn't we just agree, you know, just to try it out? Edit: A possible solution?! I understand that someone might want to use the initiative count for when a AoO was used to determine when that player can next use an AoO (barring feats). Typically in D&D, we do not use a "cooldown" based system, where an ability can't be used until it's "cooled down". We instead use a time-period system, where abilities can only be used a certain number of times in a time period. I give this precedent example: Spellcasters can only cast a number of spells per day determined by their level. It doesn't matter at what time of day they cast that spell. They all refresh, at the start of the day. So, if a wizard casts all his 3rd level spells at 9pm just before going to sleep, he can cast those very same spells after his 8 hour rest, let's say at noon the next day. He hasn't waited a full day (that is, 24 hours) even though he can cast those spells again, despite he can only cast those 3rd level spells "once per day". Similarly, when someone uses a 1/day item at 9pm, not many DMs are going to stick it to them when they want to use it at 10am the next day. Marcus has a point, yes. Everything else in the system goes along with time-period system rather than a cooldown system, and I see no reason why AoOs would not be consistent with them.
Sinis 11-19-07, 02:50 PM	Whew, editing is not working very well. What I meant in my last post is that instead of abilities "cooling down", that is, not being available until a certain amount of time has passed after their use, D&D typically uses a time-period system. So, from the beginning of a day to the end of a day, a typical spellcaster has an allotment they can use, and it refreshes in the morning, under the right circumstances. I expect that the nature of refreshing AoOs is similar, that is from the start of a player's turn to the start of their next turn, they have an allotment of AoOs that they can use.
DMDaddy 11-19-07, 03:59 PM	So, from the beginning of a day to the end of a day, a typical spellcaster has an allotment they can use, and it refreshes in the morning, under the right circumstances. This supports my arguement which is opposite of what you've stated. Rounds start at the beginning of the first person to act and ends at the end of the last person to act. Just like spells and 1 a day items, we don't count from when the user uses them but from a standard time frame not based on the user. I see AoO as the same; a standard time frame not based on the characters. As far as interpreting RAW: shouldn't we go with the simplest and easiest interpretation unless it is specifically stated elsewhere? With AoO, it is not specificaly stated elsewhere, therefore we should assume it means a standard time frame not based on character turns.
weasel0 11-19-07, 04:19 PM	Yeah, but for bookkeeping purposes, it's simpler to just refresh at thebeginning of your own turn so the DM doesn't have one more thing to keep track of... unless he/she really wants to.
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 04:21 PM	This supports my arguement which is opposite of what you've stated. Rounds start at the beginning of the first person to act and ends at the end of the last person to act. But they don't. If a cleric casts a bless spell on all allies within range and is the last in initiative order, and say it lasts three rounds. Would these three rounds include the current round, the next round, and the round after that? No, they don't. The spell counts from the time the cleric casts the spell to the third time the cleric goes afterwards, otherwise you rob all the allies of an entire round of being able to gain the benefits of the spell. As I, and the majority of DMs say - 2 - Cleric casts bless 18 - Fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Cleric attacks 18 - Fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Cleric attacks 18 - Fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Bless wears off, cleric re-casts bless As you're putting it - 2 - Cleric casts bless 18 - Fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Cleric attacks 18 - Fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Cleric attacks 18 - Bless wears off, fighter attacks 16 - Rogue attacks 8 - Wizard casts a spell 2 - Cleric re-casts bless That is the reason for the definition that a round is the time between two of a specific initiative order. It has to be a changing constant, or things like the above example would start to happen.
Sinis 11-19-07, 04:21 PM	This supports my arguement which is opposite of what you've stated. Rounds start at the beginning of the first person to act and ends at the end of the last person to act. I think you misunderstood my argument. Here's example: Xyklon has only one 5th level spell per day. Xyklon casts that 5th level spell at 8pm on Monday night. Xyklon goes to bed, has uninterrupted rest, and rememorizes at 8am on Tuesday. Xyklon casts his only 5th level spell at noon on Tuesday. Xyklon seems to have cast 5th level spells two times in a 18 hour period (the time spanning from 7pm on Monday to 1 pm on Tuesday), despite only being able to cast one 5th level spell per day (that is, one 5th level spell per 24 hour period). Is Xyklon somehow cheating? He hasn't broken any rules, including recent casting limit, etc. ----- Let's muddy this example a bit (and make it a little more like AoOs). Xyklon is a real night owl. He typically sleeps from 8am to 4pm, and then memorizes his spells. Let's say on Monday, Xyklon casts his only 5th level spell at 6am. Two hours later at 8am, he sleeps for 8 hours without interruption. He awakes at 4pm, and memorizes his spells. While eating his breakfast at the dinner table, at 5pm, Xyklon gets angry at someone else at the table and casts his only 5th level spell. He has somehow cast two 5th level spells in the same day (Monday!), despite only having one 5th level spell per day. Is Xyklon cheating? He *still* hasn't broken any recent casting limits, or broken any rules. I think this clearly illustrates how instead of abilities having a fixed amount of time between their use (i.e. a fixed length of forbiddance of an ability, triggered on use of that ability), abilities have a number of uses per time period, like a wizard casting spells in an self-determined 24 hour period. Similarly, I hold the position that players have a number of attacks of opportunity in a self-determined 6 second period. It doesn't matter to Xyklon if someone else refreshes their spells at 8am every morning. Similarly, Xyklon doesn't care when anyone else's AoOs refresh. As far as interpreting RAW: shouldn't we go with the simplest and easiest interpretation unless it is specifically stated elsewhere? With AoO, it is not specificaly stated elsewhere, therefore we should assume it means a standard time frame not based on character turns. I don't think that keeping track of when players used their Attack of Opportunities is at all simple. It complicates things, a lot.
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 04:21 PM	As far as interpreting RAW: shouldn't we go with the simplest and easiest interpretation unless it is specifically stated elsewhere? With AoO, it is not specificaly stated elsewhere, therefore we should assume it means a standard time frame not based on character turns. I find that interpretation cumbersome and unduly complicated. For me, it is far easier to know when a character has or hasn't gone, since I am already tracking that to begin with. Also, it makes far more intuitive sense to me to base what a character gets (one AoO) on when they go - not the other way around. I can almost guarantee that this is also why you will find the majority of gamers interpret AoOs the way most people here use it. None of this is to say you aren't within your rights to change it for your game, since it is highly unlikely that any of us will ever be gaming with you (and just to be clear, even if I were gaming with you - if you were DMing and decided to interpret it this way - I would likely just shake my head and go ahead since it is your game). :dragon: *****
DMDaddy 11-19-07, 05:48 PM	But they don't. If a cleric casts a bless spell on all allies within range and is the last in initiative order, and say it lasts three rounds. Would these three rounds include the current round, the next round, and the round after that? No, they don't. The spell counts from the time the cleric casts the spell to the third time the cleric goes afterwards, otherwise you rob all the allies of an entire round of being able to gain the benefits of the spell. That is the reason for the definition that a round is the time between two of a specific initiative order. It has to be a changing constant, or things like the above example would start to happen. Except that spells and effects are specificaly mentioned in the rules: PHBpg138 "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on." AoO does not specify this. You can't find it anywhere. Also, as has already been stated: PHBpg138 "In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." The big question is, how do we determine which way to count rounds? The answer: case by case based on what is written in RAW. Many things state specifically "on a players turn" or "on a players initiative count" etc... AoO does not specify, so it does not fit into the "usually".
DMDaddy 11-19-07, 05:57 PM	I don't think that keeping track of when players used their Attack of Opportunities is at all simple. It complicates things, a lot. Yes, I did misunderstand. But for tracking, it isn't hard. I just make a hash mark for each AoO. If they ask "can I make another", I look at the hash marks and answer accordingly. For the rest of your arguement, yes, I understand the spells, but forget that and look at 1 a day items. They are 1 a day, like AoO is one a round.
Sinis 11-19-07, 06:01 PM	Except that spells and effects are specificaly mentioned in the rules: PHBpg138 "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on." AoO does not specify this. You can't find it anywhere. True. I feel that the most analogous mechanic is the spells per day mechanic. As I've shown above, you can get more than your allotment of spells cast in a day. In its simplest form, an ability has a number of uses per span of time, where the span of time is defined by the acting player. Also, as has already been stated: PHBpg138 "In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." The big question is, how do we determine which way to count rounds? The answer: case by case based on what is written in RAW. Many things state specifically "on a players turn" or "on a players initiative count" etc... AoO does not specify, so it does not fit into the "usually". It is not necessarily true that AoOs are an exception because they don't specify that they fall into the "usually" clause. It may very well fall into that clause, there is no proof one way or the other.
DMDaddy 11-19-07, 06:05 PM	I can almost guarantee that this is also why you will find the majority of gamers interpret AoOs the way most people here use it. None of this is to say you aren't within your rights to change it for your game, since it is highly unlikely that any of us will ever be gaming with you (and just to be clear, even if I were gaming with you - if you were DMing and decided to interpret it this way - I would likely just shake my head and go ahead since it is your game). :dragon: ***** I appreciate you for being willing to game as a DM games. A true gamers spirit. I'm the same. As far as complicated tracking, yes, some may use a system of tracking that makes it complicated. "I can almost guarantee that this is also why you will find the majority of gamers interpret AoOs the way most people here use it." This is what I would like to know. Can a pull be started on this message board? It would be nice to see just how many do it one way or the other. What about the game designers or whoever the authorities are, how do they use AoO? This would be very useful to know. I would be willing to go with what they do.
Sinis 11-19-07, 06:10 PM	Yes, I did misunderstand. But for tracking, it isn't hard. I just make a hash mark for each AoO. If they ask "can I make another", I look at the hash marks and answer accordingly. For the rest of your arguement, yes, I understand the spells, but forget that and look at 1 a day items. They are 1 a day, like AoO is one a round. True, yes, that items also leave no description of the refresh moment. That leaves it up to speculation on when the refresh moment is. Given that the refresh moment for items and attacks of opportunity is unknown, it seems reasonable to have it follow the behaviour of an existing "per time period" mechanic, like spellcasting. Further, it is supremely simple for attacks of opportunity to be governed in this way. I freely admit that we cannot really "know" when the refresh moment is, unless a developer comes and tells us. As for game balance, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 06:15 PM	The big question is, how do we determine which way to count rounds? The answer: case by case based on what is written in RAW. Many things state specifically "on a players turn" or "on a players initiative count" etc... AoO does not specify, so it does not fit into the "usually". I think that something that needlessly limits a person's ability to perform an action or one that makes something simple needlessly complicated is something that should be interpreted differently. AoO between initiative counts is fair. It allows one in the 'usual' round - barring feats or flat-footed characters. Between character turns limits it, and makes it more confusing. I made an AoO on initiative 16, so now I have to wait until initiative 16 again before I can make a second AoO, that's just more confusing for the DM and for the Player. As a DM - you have to keep track of when what person performed what attack- making needlessly complicated a rather simple thing. As a Player - you have to keep track of specifically which enemy you had your last AoO with - making it so you have to keep track of specific enemies, and even the possibility of getting confused as to which enemy you attacked. When I DM, if there are multiple enemies that go on initiatives between my players, I usually just ignore their specific initiative score and attack with all of them at one time. I don't let my players know what order they're in aside from each other, making for more strategic battles. I know it would be massively confusing to my player if they had to pay attention to which specific creature they got their AoO against - cause I may delay or ready actions with that particular creature.
weasel0 11-19-07, 07:16 PM	I have per day items all refresh at dawn like a cleric's spells could be unless specifically noted otherwise.
StevenO 11-19-07, 07:27 PM	Why so much passion about something as simple as AoO? This supports my arguement which is opposite of what you've stated. Rounds start at the beginning of the first person to act and ends at the end of the last person to act. Just like spells and 1 a day items, we don't count from when the user uses them but from a standard time frame not based on the user. I see AoO as the same; a standard time frame not based on the characters. As far as interpreting RAW: shouldn't we go with the simplest and easiest interpretation unless it is specifically stated elsewhere? With AoO, it is not specificaly stated elsewhere, therefore we should assume it means a standard time frame not based on character turns. I think there is a lot wrong with these statements. Spells and Spells per day do NOT follow the same pattern as AoO do during combat. How spells per day work with spell preparation requirement for arcane casters already has some grey areas which aren't present with AoO. With spellcasters one persons day can be completely different from anothers and if you compare that to combat rounds each ones "day" begins and ends with their point in initiative, NOT the arbetrary top or bottom of the order. Another thing with spells is that they do not automatically replentish but require the caster to perform some action to enable further spellcasting. In combat the standard time frame is a round but a round is an individual thing and is ENTIRELY character dependant. After combat starts it rarely matters who acts at initiative +24 and who goes at -1 because everyone only gets to go once during that time frame. But as others have pointed out things based on a round have to start with a character and then end with that character's initiative spot otherwise some actions become worthless. Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm seeing three times some say AoO "refresh": 1. At the beginning of a character's action (the correct method.) 2. At the beginning of the character who triggered the AoO's action. 3. When initiative "resets" to 20. If applied universally all could work but depending on how you view them you never fix the "problems" with any of them. Option 1 really is the simplest because you just need to "go" to get back you AoO options and then mark them off until you can't make any more or get them refreshed. Option 3 actually can work similiarly to option 1 but it still leaves the option of getting in AoO between a character's action, the initiative reset, and again before the character's next action. Option 2 may seem the "fairest" but it is also the most complicated; now a character has to worry about another's actions instead of just their own or even a big across the board "RESET" to know when they get their AoO option back. I know Combat Reflexes keeps getting mentioned but generally has been left out of the conversation but I think it helps clarify the issue. I'll use DEX 18 for five AoO for my examples. With Op1 your turn comes up and you get your pool of AoO to spend from until you turn comes up again so no problem here as you'll only have the opportunity for five "free" attacks before you go again. Option 3 may have been similar to Op1 before in that you could get two AoO between the same point in initiative on two separate round but with Combat Reflexes thrown in things can become CRAZY; having AoO reset at 20 means a character could take five AoO after the go but before initiative reset and another five before their next action comes up for a total of TEN "free" attacks between the character's action. If Option 2 had been complicated before what happens when you need to start tracking FIVE people's actions to know when you get an AoO back? There have been enough posts showing how AoO work over multiple rounds I don't see why some people have such a hard time accepting that AoO "refresh" on a character's turn.
BoringInfoGuy 11-19-07, 08:01 PM	Except that spells and effects are specificaly mentioned in the rules: PHBpg138 "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on." AoO does not specify this. You can't find it anywhere. Also, as has already been stated: PHBpg138 "In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." The big question is, how do we determine which way to count rounds? The answer: case by case based on what is written in RAW. Many things state specifically "on a players turn" or "on a players initiative count" etc... AoO does not specify, so it does not fit into the "usually". Actually, I would argue that since we have a method that is the "usual" method then you use that method, unless something specifically says otherwise. In other words, you treat the usual way as the default option. So, the answer would then change to: a span of time from one round to the the same initiative count in the next round, unless specifically stated otherwise. AoO's don't say that they last until a certain duration for the simple fact that they have no duration. They have a frequency.
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 08:04 PM	I actually wanted to - and did - use two languages at once, hoping against hope that maybe you might understand at least one of them. Being fluent in English, French, and Spanish, it first seemed to me like you were improvising some kind of foreign expression without giving it much thought. It appears I was mistaken. This said, try to stay in topic (and in the general tongue of the forums). Where do you get evidence that it doesn't? Every single RPGA event I have gamed in has the AoOs reset on the initiative count of the individual. Not the combat round, as you propose. Funny thing though: the RPGA doesn't document this kind of information any more than the RAW do. What this means is that some sort of unspoken consensus was reached between the majority of the D&D gamers on this matter, and that's fine. The point I'm trying to bring forward is that this consensus does not reflect the idea of once per round, universally speaking. This is not quite true. When I told you that the method I am using (and I might add, the method used by the majority of gamers) allows one attack per round, you proceeded to argue that it allowed more than one AoO per round. Which is moronic, since it clearly doesn't. Actually it does. What your method does, and I think Sinis said it best, is demonstrate that you get no more than one AoO between your turns. In order to prove that your method allows only one AoO per round, you have to show me that no round exists where this is not true. If AoOs don't have a 1-round cooldown, this is a mathematical impossibility. I understand that someone might want to use the initiative count for when a AoO was used to determine when that player can next use an AoO (barring feats). Typically in D&D, we do not use a "cooldown" based system, where an ability can't be used until it's "cooled down". We instead use a time-period system, where abilities can only be used a certain number of times in a time period. I give this precedent example: Spellcasters can only cast a number of spells per day determined by their level. It doesn't matter at what time of day they cast that spell. They all refresh, at the start of the day. So, if a wizard casts all his 3rd level spells at 9pm just before going to sleep, he can cast those very same spells after his 8 hour rest, let's say at noon the next day. He hasn't waited a full day (that is, 24 hours) even though he can cast those spells again, despite he can only cast those 3rd level spells "once per day". Similarly, when someone uses a 1/day item at 9pm, not many DMs are going to stick it to them when they want to use it at 10am the next day. Spellcasting is a poor example to demonstrate that spellcasters get to prepare their spells on a specific period. Divine spellcasters, for example, must pray/meditate for their spells at a specific time every day, meaning that there's a 24-hour cooldown period between spell preparation for divine casters. As if this wasn't enough, individual spell slots have 8-hour cooldown periods as well. On the other hand, you have wizards, which are not restricted to a specific time during which they have to prepare their spells, but still suffer the 8-hour cooldown for spell slots. The real problems lie in determining when exactly to reset the counter and recover any expended abilities. The most coherent way to promote the idea of "once per time period" is to simply have a cooldown equal to the time period. This, unfortunately, requires more bookkeeping on everyone's part. On the other hand, the simple solution is to have everything refresh at a static and specific point in the time period. This obviously leads to circumstances that break the entire idea of "once per time period." Say, for example, that you have the ability to use disintegrate once per day as a spell-like ability, and your DM rules that per day abilities recharge at midnight. You could use your spell-like ability at 23h55, and then again 10 minutes later. When you've used the same ability twice in the same 15-minute time span, you're breaking the idea that you can use it once per day. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. The point I'm stressing, however, is that coherence demands a cooldown, whereas simplicity demands a fixed reset. The big question is, how do we determine which way to count rounds? The answer: case by case based on what is written in RAW. Many things state specifically "on a players turn" or "on a players initiative count" etc... AoO does not specify, so it does not fit into the "usually". When I aim for coherence and need to measure rounds according to a specific event, I start counting at the time the event takes place. For example, if I have an ability that lasts three rounds, I start counting at the moment the ability is used. If I wanted to be exact on AoOs, I would have to start measuring rounds when the AoO is made, since this is the only way I can make sure, beyond any kind of doubt, that I'll be getting only one AoO per round. But for tracking, it isn't hard. I just make a hash mark for each AoO. If I were to do it, I would use my little magnetic board I'm already using to track initiative, and have my players carry extra tokens that I place right next to the acting creature that provoked the AoO. When the turn counter reaches that initiative again, I simply return the tokens to the player that made the AoO. It's easy enough, but when the DM controls many adversaries and makes good use of AoOs, that little board gets cluttered up quickly.
Kratch 11-19-07, 08:10 PM	And -- I don't think it is "difficult bookkeeping" to keep track of the "refreshes one round later" rule. A fair player should be keeping track of when he takes AoOs himself. It's not that hard if you have half a brain (or a whole brain, I guess). It can become exceedingly difficult with combat reflex's, multiple opponents and things, things that received an AoO delaying or using an immediate action (like celeraty) to gain an an AoO provoking action outside their normal init, etc. These kinds of things, particularly when combined, can result in AoO's having their own place in initiative order unrelated to anything else, and if you have several of AoO's from combat reflex's, you can easily lose track.
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 08:12 PM	AoO's don't say that they last until a certain duration for the simple fact that they have no duration. They have a frequency. It's more complicated than that. It's not that they have a frequency; they have an incertain frequency. Character turns have a true frequency, since they take place only once per round, and always at the same time. AoOs, on the other hand, are subject to interpretation. If I choose to think that you get no more than one AoO per round, then this becomes a maximum frequency of once per round, which means that a window of at least one round must exist between AoOs. On the other hand, if I decide that on average, AoOs have a frequency of once per round, then the entire argument of refreshing AoOs on a character's turn starts to work. As stated earlier in the thread, on average, even if you allow AoOs to refresh on a character's turn, the maximum average number of AoOs will be equal to the number of rounds elapsed.
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 08:23 PM	If I were to do it, I would use my little magnetic board I'm already using to track initiative, and have my players carry extra tokens that I place right next to the acting creature that provoked the AoO. When the turn counter reaches that initiative again, I simply return the tokens to the player that made the AoO. It's easy enough, but when the DM controls many adversaries and makes good use of AoOs, that little board gets cluttered up quickly. Wouldn't that just make it needlessly complicated? Instead of putting a little AoO token up - not counting however many they get for Combat Reflexes - at each initiative, why don't you just use one token for the PC, and when his turn comes up, any AoOs he's used are refreshed automatically?
Kratch 11-19-07, 08:24 PM	Does it seem fair that a character can get 2 AoOs within 6 second? And, do you think this is what the writers intention was when they wrote: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. ? where does it say you can't get 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other. The rules state you can only get 1 AoO per round, and as boringinfoguy demonstrated, that is whats happening.
Kratch 11-19-07, 08:34 PM	where does it say you can't get 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other. The rules state you can only get 1 AoO per round, and as boringinfoguy demonstrated, that is whats happening. The initiative is as follows: Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 First round finishes with no Attack of Opportunities provoked. Second round starts: (Note that I'm using a very 2nd edition way of dividing up the rounds) Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, it looks like the fighter got two AoO's in one round. Actually, he merely got to use the potential AoO from the first round, and the potential AoO in the second. Or, to put it another way, across two rounds, he has been able to make two AoO's Third round: Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Note that across three rounds, the fighter has only been able to make 3 AoO's. Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter cannot take attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, chooses not to attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Now, in round 4, the fighter chooses not to take the AoO. (Let's say the goblin turned out to be a sorcerer, and the fighter wants to interrupt the goblins spell casting). So, in round 4, the fighter has only taken 3 AoO's Cleric - 20 Creature - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Fighter - 14 May now take AoO. Orc - 13 Provokes AoO, Fighter takes attack. Creature - 10 Wizard - 5 Looking at the above example, if we used your rule for needing an entire 6 seconds for an AoO to refresh, it would cost the fighter nearly a full 6 seconds just to switch targets of an AoO, this would result in denying the fighter a once per round AoO that he is supposed to receive. You'll see in his 4th round, when he chooses to switch AoO targets from or (13) to goblin(15), he gets no AoO at all for the 4th round, but using the "refresh at the start of your turn" rule, he's able to make it up in the 5th round, using your "refresh 1 round after it's been used" would cost him a rounds AoO just to switch targets, and thats seems even more unfair then allowing him to make 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other, while still maintaining a limit of 1 per round (start of turn to start of turn)
Sinis 11-19-07, 08:36 PM	Funny thing though: the RPGA doesn't document this kind of information any more than the RAW do. What this means is that some sort of unspoken consensus was reached between the majority of the D&D gamers on this matter, and that's fine. The point I'm trying to bring forward is that this consensus does not reflect the idea of once per round, universally speaking. It is interesting that there is this "consensus". I really do think that it is born out of simplicity, and its similarity to spellcasting. Further, barring feats, the player first gains the ability to make an AoO on their first action. So, often one can't make more than one AoO per round anyway. Spellcasting is a poor example to demonstrate that spellcasters get to prepare their spells on a specific period. Divine spellcasters, for example, must pray/meditate for their spells at a specific time every day, meaning that there's a 24-hour cooldown period between spell preparation for divine casters. As if this wasn't enough, individual spell slots have 8-hour cooldown periods as well. On the other hand, you have wizards, which are not restricted to a specific time during which they have to prepare their spells, but still suffer the 8-hour cooldown for spell slots. It's true that divine casters follow the specific reset, but that does not prevent them from casting more then their "spells per day" in any given 24 hour period, as I showed in the first "Xyklon" example (casting at 9pm, and then again at 8pm after prayer). In the same manner, players can have more than one attack of opportunity per round on any fixed reset system. The real problems lie in determining when exactly to reset the counter and recover any expended abilities. The most coherent way to promote the idea of "once per time period" is to simply have a cooldown equal to the time period. This, unfortunately, requires more bookkeeping on everyone's part. On the other hand, the simple solution is to have everything refresh at a static and specific point in the time period. This obviously leads to circumstances that break the entire idea of "once per time period." Say, for example, that you have the ability to use disintegrate once per day as a spell-like ability, and your DM rules that per day abilities recharge at midnight. You could use your spell-like ability at 23h55, and then again 10 minutes later. When you've used the same ability twice in the same 15-minute time span, you're breaking the idea that you can use it once per day. This gets very, very, very complicated with something that is more than one use per time period. Take Combat Reflexes and a variable reset (that is, a cooldown system), for example. If a critter/player combat reflexes and 14 dex gets "3 Attacks of opportunity per round". Lets' say he makes an AoO at initiative 22, and then again at 16, and then again at 15. Then Initiative 20 rolls around and someone provokes an AoO. He takes that shot. Let's say that another AoO is provoked at Initiative 18. The critter/player in question cannot make that AoO under the cooldown system. Keeping track of all the attacks of opportunity they made and when is extremely problematic and can bog down combat. Especially if there is more than one participant with combat reflexes, and more than a few participants. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. The point I'm stressing, however, is that coherence demands a cooldown, whereas simplicity demands a fixed reset. Coherence out the window! It's not a big deal, and if high level characters can swing multiple times per round, and two-weapon fighting characters can go into blender mode, who cares if someone is going to make more than one AoO.[/QUOTE] Okay, so there's no convention on when your attacks of opportunity reset. I think the general consensus is at the start of your turn. It's certainly the easiest way of doing things. If it is truly imbalanced in a game-breaking way, I'll eat my hat. To the OP: Just do the easiest thing, which many of us agree is to reset it on the person's turn. The world wont explode if you do it this way. I promise.
BoringInfoGuy 11-19-07, 08:55 PM	Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy However, even if you keep looking at rounds from the definition of when the first character acts to when the last character acts, no character can have made more Attacks of Opportunity than number of rounds that have passed. Show me any point where you can see that the fighter has made more attacks of opportunity than there are rounds. Show me a way where, after the first round, the fighter has made 2 AoOs. Show me a way where, after the second round, the fighter has made 3 AoOs, and so on. And no, the fighter does not have any feats that would grant him extra Attacks of Opportunity. You can not.This kind of reasoning serves no purpose. Taking, for example, a fighter executing 4 AoOs during round 1, and 0 AoOs during rounds 2, 3, and 4, I can also state that the fighter made no more AoOs than the number of rounds elapsed. You lose all coherence when you stop looking at one-round windows to prove your points. It is much more significant than you would like. Your counter example is a mere sidestep. It would be valid if it were possible for the fighter to make 4 AoO's in the first round. It would even be valid if the fighter was able to have made 2 AoO's after only the first round. Instead, I've shown that at the end of EVERY round, the fighter has only been able to make a number of AoO's equal, or less than, the number of rounds that have passed. You've claim that the fighter in my example has made more than one AoO in a round. In other words, he has taken more AoO's per round than he is allowed. But if that was really the case, you would be able to see the fighter having taken a number of AoO's greater than the number of rounds that have passed. How is it possible for the fighter to be getting extra AoO's per round, while not having more AoO's than rounds that have passed? And I note that you've avoided commenting on the example that uses the Cleric entirely. 2) Where do you get evidence that, for AoOs, the round starts on your turn? 3) I understand what a round means. Get beyond this silly argument. The entire debate lies in where we start to measure. You're arbitrarily deciding to start on your turn, whereas I propose to start at any and all possible points in time. 2) By the fact that the first time you can take on Attack of Opportunity is after your turn first comes up. Before your first turn, no AoO is possible. After your first turn, you can take an AoO. Therefore, you gain the ability to take an AoO on your initiative. An AoO is described as a Free attack that can be made once per round. It does not have any point in it's description where it says if matters if an AoO happens at the beginning or end of a round. Only that it may happen once per round. Not every 6 seconds. Once per 6 second interval. With nothing in the description of Attacks of Opportunity saying you have to watch what initiative count you took the AoO on to determine when you get to take another AoO, you default to the usual method of determining when you can take actions. Since you gained the ability to take your first AoO at the start of your first initiative, you gain the ability to take an AoO at the start of your second initiative. Don't like what I've come up with? Show me a rational reason to use some other point to count rounds. Note that "To prevent someone from getting two AoO's in a round" does not work, since the method I described counts a round from initiative to initiative, and only allows one AoO in that period. 3) Are you certain? Perhaps you shouldn't be. It is possible to not understand something correctly without realizing it. How many different posters have told you that you aren't counting rounds right? At some point, you should consider the possibility that you are wrong. What many people have been telling you is that if you understood rounds better, you would also understand when to measure the start of a round, and you would no longer see two AoO's in a single round.
DMDaddy 11-19-07, 11:14 PM	Before your first turn, no AoO is possible. After your first turn, you can take an AoO. Therefore, you gain the ability to take an AoO on your initiative. I know not to complicate the water. But, a creature that is never caught flat footed can make an AoO from the beginning of combat; also what I call the beginning of the round. Unless I'm getting this wrong?
CeilingNinja 11-19-07, 11:47 PM	I know not to complicate the water. But, a creature that is never caught flat footed can make an AoO from the beginning of combat; also what I call the beginning of the round. Unless I'm getting this wrong? I would say yes. They can make an AoO as long as they only make one before their initiative order comes up - barring feats, of course.
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 11:59 PM	Wouldn't that just make it needlessly complicated? Instead of putting a little AoO token up - not counting however many they get for Combat Reflexes - at each initiative, why don't you just use one token for the PC, and when his turn comes up, any AoOs he's used are refreshed automatically? Okay, you should really read more closely. I'm already playing by refreshing AoOs on the character's turn. That's not the issue. The main point is that this kind of gameplay does not reflect a once per round mechanic. The example you responded to was listed as a way to easily manage a system that does reflect a once per round mechanic, such as allowing for a one-round cooldown after each AoO. where does it say you can't get 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other. The rules state you can only get 1 AoO per round, and as boringinfoguy demonstrated, that is whats happening. A round represents 6 seconds in the game world, as stated on PHB p138. If it's stated that you can only make one AoO per round, it's equivalent to saying you can only make one AoO per 6 seconds. BoringInfoGuy demonstrated nothing that corroborates this; his example merely shows that you're not getting more than one AoO between each of your turns. Looking at the above example, if we used your rule for needing an entire 6 seconds for an AoO to refresh, it would cost the fighter nearly a full 6 seconds just to switch targets of an AoO, this would result in denying the fighter a once per round AoO that he is supposed to receive. You'll see in his 4th round, when he chooses to switch AoO targets from or (13) to goblin(15), he gets no AoO at all for the 4th round, but using the "refresh at the start of your turn" rule, he's able to make it up in the 5th round, using your "refresh 1 round after it's been used" would cost him a rounds AoO just to switch targets, and thats seems even more unfair then allowing him to make 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other, while still maintaining a limit of 1 per round (start of turn to start of turn) This all makes no sense at all. You're assuming that AoOs are inherently cyclic, but this is not the case. You don't necessarily get the opportunities to make an AoO all the time. Furthermore, you're not switching targets when making AoOs. Heck, it's never an issue of switching targets; it's merely taking an opportunity to make an extra attack, which you can do, at the most, every 6 seconds. It is interesting that there is this "consensus". I really do think that it is born out of simplicity, and its similarity to spellcasting. Further, barring feats, the player first gains the ability to make an AoO on their first action. So, often one can't make more than one AoO per round anyway. This is true. Hence the reason why I don't actually bother to have AoOs undergo a cooldown period. I do, however, recognize that this system doesn't coherently reflect its intended purpose, and I'm fine with it. It's true that divine casters follow the specific reset, but that does not prevent them from casting more then their "spells per day" in any given 24 hour period, as I showed in the first "Xyklon" example (casting at 9pm, and then again at 8pm after prayer). In the same manner, players can have more than one attack of opportunity per round on any fixed reset system. You should keep something in mind, though: the real limit lies in how often you can prepare spells, from the once per day point of view. Casting is merely expending prepared spells and is independent from spell preparation, except when you want to prepare a spell in a spell slot used in the last 8 hours, which corroborates with the idea that cooldown also exists in the spellcasting system. This gets very, very, very complicated with something that is more than one use per time period. Take Combat Reflexes and a variable reset (that is, a cooldown system), for example. If a critter/player combat reflexes and 14 dex gets "3 Attacks of opportunity per round". Lets' say he makes an AoO at initiative 22, and then again at 16, and then again at 15. Then Initiative 20 rolls around and someone provokes an AoO. He takes that shot. Let's say that another AoO is provoked at Initiative 18. The critter/player in question cannot make that AoO under the cooldown system. Keeping track of all the attacks of opportunity they made and when is extremely problematic and can bog down combat. Especially if there is more than one participant with combat reflexes, and more than a few participants. Which is why I don't use the system myself. If I were to use it, however, I would do it as stated above, using a magnetic board and tokens to indicate when AoOs are made and removing these tokens when the initiative on which they're located is reached. It's not a hassle at all, if you have the right tools. Coherence out the window! It's not a big deal, and if high level characters can swing multiple times per round, and two-weapon fighting characters can go into blender mode, who cares if someone is going to make more than one AoO. Okay, so there's no convention on when your attacks of opportunity reset. I think the general consensus is at the start of your turn. It's certainly the easiest way of doing things. If it is truly imbalanced in a game-breaking way, I'll eat my hat. As I have said many times, I've no problem with this. I'm glad you can see where the consensual system is flawed and show some understanding as to why we can live with these flaws. Instead, I've shown that at the end of EVERY round, the fighter has only been able to make a number of AoO's equal, or less than, the number of rounds that have passed. You've claim that the fighter in my example has made more than one AoO in a round. In other words, he has taken more AoO's per round than he is allowed. But if that was really the case, you would be able to see the fighter having taken a number of AoO's greater than the number of rounds that have passed. How is it possible for the fighter to be getting extra AoO's per round, while not having more AoO's than rounds that have passed? You're reasoning in circles. You start with the premise that the fighter will never make more than one AoO per round, and rather than looking at every single round individually and determine the AoOs made, you simply look at a total output based on the total number of rounds played. This is not coherent reasoning. Let me show you. Consider this statement: after two minutes, I've solved two math problems. Using your reasoning, you would argue that the rule is that I' solving one math problem per minute. The problem is that your claim is merely an average value and in no way actually reflects whatever might have actually happened. I could've solved the first problem in 90 seconds, and the latter one in 15 seconds and still claim that after two minutes, I've solved two math problems. In reality, I solved no problem in the first minute, and solved two in the second one. This is because the two problem resolutions took place within the same 60-second time span. The only way I can prove I solved only one problem per minute is to look at every possible minute within this interval, and count how many problems I solved. If I had solved the first one after 5 seconds, and the other one after a total of 65 seconds, I can safely claim that I solved one problem per minute, no matter how you choose to look at it. This is why your example makes no sense. You're using an average figure to prove a rule that's based on a singular unit. And I note that you've avoided commenting on the example that uses the Cleric entirely. See the reasons I just explained. You can't tally totals and use them to justify your rules. If you want to look at something that happens once per round, you can only look at single rounds. By the fact that the first time you can take on Attack of Opportunity is after your turn first comes up. That's only because you're flat-footed until your first turn comes up, and because you can't execute AoOs while flat-footed. If you really want to play this card, I'll just toss in Combat Reflexes into the fray, which do allow you to execute AoOs while flat-footed. Tell me, how many AoOs does a character with Dex 10 and Combat Reflexes get, before his first turn comes up? An AoO is described as a Free attack that can be made once per round. It does not have any point in it's description where it says if matters if an AoO happens at the beginning or end of a round. Only that it may happen once per round. Not every 6 seconds. Once per 6 second interval. Very true. The thing is, your examples show certain 6-second intervals during which a character is making more than one AoO. For example, look at your Fighter example. Take the 6-second interval that starts when the Cleric's 2nd turn comes up. How many AoOs does the Fighter get during this 6-second interval? Two. Look at your Cleric example. Consider the 6-second interval starting on the Fighter's 4th turn. How many AoOs does the Cleric make during this 6-second interval? Two. With nothing in the description of Attacks of Opportunity saying you have to watch what initiative count you took the AoO on to determine when you get to take another AoO, you default to the usual method of determining when you can take actions. Since you gained the ability to take your first AoO at the start of your first initiative, you gain the ability to take an AoO at the start of your second initiative. This entire claim has no basis. Nothing in the RAW states that you gain the ability to make AoOs on your turn. In reality, you gain the ability to make AoOs when one is provoked and you can execute it only when you're not flat-footed or when you've not already made an AoO in the last round. Don't like what I've come up with? Show me a rational reason to use some other point to count rounds. Note that "To prevent someone from getting two AoO's in a round" does not work, since the method I described counts a round from initiative to initiative, and only allows one AoO in that period. Actually, the rational reason is coherence. And I'm not telling you to look at another specific point to use as a basis for counting rounds. I'm telling you to look at EVERY possible point you can use to count rounds. As for your examples, I've shown you above where you failed. Are you certain? Perhaps you shouldn't be. It is possible to not understand something correctly without realizing it. How many different posters have told you that you aren't counting rounds right? At some point, you should consider the possibility that you are wrong. What many people have been telling you is that if you understood rounds better, you would also understand when to measure the start of a round, and you would no longer see two AoO's in a single round. Wow. Just because three people are saying something that means I should automatically agree with them? Popular vote has nothing to do with logic or coherence. Furthermore, having more people agree with you is no guarantee of correctness. If you gathered 10 people who would firmly believe that 2 + 2 = 5, I would still be as convinced that 2 + 2 = 4 and be able to prove it to you. If you really want to win this entire issue, just find one statement within the RAW that states that you gain the ability to make AoOs on your turn. Otherwise, you're merely extrapolating based on misconceptions. I know not to complicate the water. But, a creature that is never caught flat footed can make an AoO from the beginning of combat; also what I call the beginning of the round. Unless I'm getting this wrong? You're getting it right, despite what anyone might tell you. I would say yes. They can make an AoO as long as they only make one before their initiative order comes up - barring feats, of course. You realize that this statement breaks the idea that you gain potential AoOs on your turn? Before your first turn, you haven't gained the potential. This is yet another reason why the consensual system fails. Granted, this is an exception case, but it's worthy of consideration nonetheless.
BoringInfoGuy 11-20-07, 12:29 AM	I know not to complicate the water. But, a creature that is never caught flat footed can make an AoO from the beginning of combat; also what I call the beginning of the round. Unless I'm getting this wrong? Flat footed means that you've yet to take your first action in combat. Even without a surprise round, everyone starts in the same, flat footed state. (No Dex bonus to AC, no AoO's) As each characters turn comes up in combat, they stop being flat footed. The first person in initiative has the advantage. Rogues love going first, because most characters are denied their Dex bonus, granting easy sneak attack damage. Anyway, back on topic, everyone is caught flat footed. But the person who acts first (using my example, the cleric) gets out of that state before anyone else can act. He can then take an AoO on the first opponent to provoke one in his melee range. (Or, he could choose to not take that attack, to be able to take an AoO against another creature that round.) Other characters, however, need to wait until after their first initiative, surprised or not. Only after they stop being flat footed can they take an AoO. (Baring class abilities or the Combat Reflexes feat.) I'm more than a bit tired, so forgive me if I'm not writing that well. But does that unmuddy the water for you?
PenderGrass 11-20-07, 12:38 AM	Actually it does. What your method does, and I think Sinis said it best, is demonstrate that you get no more than one AoO between your turns. Are you now going to tell me that I get more than 1 turn per round? In order to prove that your method allows only one AoO per round, you have to show me that no round exists where this is not true. If AoOs don't have a 1-round cooldown, this is a mathematical impossibility. Again, your inability to understand the most basic concepts of how to interpret a round makes it impossible for me to explain it to you. With your thinking you will squeeze out 61 seconds per minute and 25 hours per day and 11 years per decade. Also, just so you know (since I have no idea when you started DMing), the precedent for having the AoO reset on ones action is given in 3.0, and I'll quote one such example (PHB, page 122, second column, 3rd paragraph down): "If you have the Combat Reflexes feat (page 80), you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make between actions." :dragon: *****
Kratch 11-20-07, 01:50 AM	A round represents 6 seconds in the game world, as stated on PHB p138. If it's stated that you can only make one AoO per round, it's equivalent to saying you can only make one AoO per 6 seconds. BoringInfoGuy demonstrated nothing that corroborates this; his example merely shows that you're not getting more than one AoO between each of your turns. A round is 6 seconds, and your entitled to one AoO per round, meaning your entitled to one AoO within every 6 second period, you method makes it entitle to 1 AoO after 6 seconds or more. using your method... fighter init 16 orc init 15 goblin caster init 14 fighter attacks normally orc provokes, fighter does not take it, knowing goblin is a caster goblin provokes, fighter takes it 6 seconds have passed. fighter attacks normally orc provokes, fighter can't take it goblin provokes, fighter kills goblin 6 more seconds pass, fighter attacks normally orc provokes, can't take it goblin is dead 6 more seconds have passed in which the fighter was denied an AoO within that 6 seconds. in fact, It's been almost 12 seconds since the fighters has gotten his 1 AoO per 6 seconds. fighter attacks normally, kills orc. fighter was denied the AoO he was supposed to be entitled to every 6 seconds. The rule is 1 AoO per round (6 second period), not that 6 seconds has to pass between each AoO, but rather, 1 within a 6 second timeframe from 1 point in the initiative to another. Both methods have flaws depending on how you look at it, but with the refreshing on the start of your turn, you are still only getting 1 AoO per 6 second period (start of turn to start of turn), even if you can manage 2 attacks immediately before and after your turn (thus within 6 seconds of each other). The alternative makes for an additional initiative counter to keep track of (or multiple with combat reflex's), that move continuously throughout combat, and can deny the chance to take AoO's for longer then a round, in which your supposed to be entitled to. one method results in an odd, but still restricted, distribution of AoOs, the other adds additional work (however minor) and can be used to deny the players/characters of actions.
Marcus Majarra 11-20-07, 02:35 AM	Flat footed means that you've yet to take your first action in combat. Even without a surprise round, everyone starts in the same, flat footed state. (No Dex bonus to AC, no AoO's) That's what being flat-footed generally means. You can also be flat-footed by virtue of balancing, for example. Are you now going to tell me that I get more than 1 turn per round? Of course not. Because between each of your turns, there is no less than 1 round's worth of time. Similarly, in order to get no more than one AoO per round, you need no less than 1 round's worth of time between making AoOs. Again, your inability to understand the most basic concepts of how to interpret a round makes it impossible for me to explain it to you. With your thinking you will squeeze out 61 seconds per minute and 25 hours per day and 11 years per decade. Have you stopped to consider the idea that you might be wrong or misinterpreting things? It stands to reason that, if you could prove that no round exists with more than one AoO taking place, you'd have no difficulty bringing that example up. Stop trying to dismiss my credibility and PROVE ME WRONG. Also, just so you know (since I have no idea when you started DMing), the precedent for having the AoO reset on ones action is given in 3.0, and I'll quote one such example (PHB, page 122, second column, 3rd paragraph down): "If you have the Combat Reflexes feat (page 80), you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make between actions." Now THIS is what I call doing your homework. Kudos on finding this one. This actually explains why the current consensus exists. Still, sticking to 3.5 RAW, AoOs are no longer a "between your actions" mechanic. Also, I started DMing back in 2E, around '95-'96. The rule is 1 AoO per round (6 second period), not that 6 seconds has to pass between each AoO, but rather, 1 within a 6 second timeframe from 1 point in the initiative to another. True. I'm not arguing any differently. What I'm arguing is that if I can pick any 6-second timeframe, and show you that the character is making more than one AoO, the system fails. Both methods have flaws depending on how you look at it, but with the refreshing on the start of your turn, you are still only getting 1 AoO per 6 second period (start of turn to start of turn), even if you can manage 2 attacks immediately before and after your turn (thus within 6 seconds of each other). Actually, you're not getting 1 AoO per 6-second frame. You're getting 1 AoO between your actions. That the time between your actions is a 6-second frame is mere coincidence. What you need to realize is that in order for the current "system" to work, you need to arbitrarily set the start and end of rounds at the character's initiative, for purposes of AoOs. The alternative makes for an additional initiative counter to keep track of (or multiple with combat reflex's), that move continuously throughout combat, and can deny the chance to take AoO's for longer then a round, in which your supposed to be entitled to. one method results in an odd, but still restricted, distribution of AoOs, the other adds additional work (however minor) and can be used to deny the players/characters of actions. You're not supposed to be entitled to anything, in reality. Enforcing the no more than 1 AoO per round (no matter where you count) can be useful, tactically speaking. Sometimes, it's better for certain creatures to draw out AoOs against themselves to allow for other allies to perform distracting actions while threatened. It's like saying "ok, I'm taking this hit to give you enough cover to do what you need to do." Under the current "system," the feasability of this is questionable. Taking this into consideration, I think I will start to keep AoO counters for my players and monsters.
CeilingNinja 11-20-07, 08:28 AM	What I'm arguing is that if I can pick any 6-second timeframe, and show you that the character is making more than one AoO, the system fails. But you can't arbitrarily choose any 6-second time frame just cause you feel like it. That's the point I've been trying to make. I don't deny that if you look at the whole 19-19 time frame you see one character make two AoOs. That, however, is not a round in relation to the character, which is what you have to look at. A round is relative to each character. A fighter with init 17 lives within the 17-17 round. A cleric with init 5 lives within the 5-5 round. These two rounds overlap and actions can happen between them, but the only importance that each round has on another is for effects happening between rounds on another character's round (the bless example I've put up.) If rounds are not relative - as in 2.0 - then not only does the AoO system break down, but every other system ends up breaking down as well. Benefits from spells are lost before they should expire, feats lose their use, characters must make actions or lose the chance to perform them. Given the 'refresh when the action was performed' way to explain AoOs, if the Fighter uses his AoO at initiative 1 and kills the opponent at iniative 1 - he cannot use an AoO his entire next round, so he cannot make 1 AoO per every round, which is in violation of the rules. If it refreshes at the start of the fighter's round, he can make an AoO whenever an enemy provokes, giving him the 1 AoO per round he is entitled to within the rules.
Marcus Majarra 11-20-07, 09:02 AM	But you can't arbitrarily choose any 6-second time frame just cause you feel like it. That's the point I've been trying to make. I don't deny that if you look at the whole 19-19 time frame you see one character make two AoOs. That, however, is not a round in relation to the character, which is what you have to look at. A round is relative to each character. A fighter with init 17 lives within the 17-17 round. A cleric with init 5 lives within the 5-5 round. These two rounds overlap and actions can happen between them, but the only importance that each round has on another is for effects happening between rounds on another character's round (the bless example I've put up.) On this, I disagree. For coherence's sake, a round is relative to the effect taking place at a specific time, not to the character. For example, when you cast a spell that lasts three rounds, you don't measure these rounds based on the character's turns; you measure them based on the initiative on which the effect took place. This becomes even clearer when, for example, the caster delays his turn one round after casting the spell. After that point, his turn and the end of the spell will not even be synchronized. A similar example: casting feather fall. Casting this spell is an immediate action, meaning you can cast it when it's not even your turn. This spell will never start and end on your turn unless you cast it on your turn (or if you delay to compensate). This is why the round should always be relative to the specific effect you want to gauge, unless you have a concrete reason not to do so. If rounds are not relative - as in 2.0 - then not only does the AoO system break down, but every other system ends up breaking down as well. Benefits from spells are lost before they should expire, feats lose their use, characters must make actions or lose the chance to perform them. That's only because you're assuming that these effects are starting on the character's turn or because the character's initiative never changes. In all fairness, AoOs aren't like most actions, since they're almost always used out-of-turn. Given the 'refresh when the action was performed' way to explain AoOs, if the Fighter uses his AoO at initiative 1 and kills the opponent at iniative 1 - he cannot use an AoO his entire next round, so he cannot make 1 AoO per every round, which is in violation of the rules. If it refreshes at the start of the fighter's round, he can make an AoO whenever an enemy provokes, giving him the 1 AoO per round he is entitled to within the rules. It's not a violation of the rules. If the fighter keeps receiving opportunities on initiative 1 to make AoOs, he will indeed make 1 AoO per round until such opportunities run out. You're confusing "not being able to make AoOs" with "not having opportunities." The violation of the rules is allowing the fighter to make more than 1 AoO per round, which happens when the time between AoOs can be less than 6 seconds.
CeilingNinja 11-20-07, 09:19 AM	It's not a violation of the rules. If the fighter keeps receiving opportunities on initiative 1 to make AoOs, he will indeed make 1 AoO per round until such opportunities run out. You're confusing "not being able to make AoOs" with "not having opportunities." The violation of the rules is allowing the fighter to make more than 1 AoO per round, which happens when the time between AoOs can be less than 6 seconds. As has been pointed out multiple times. The fighter is not making more than one AoO per round. He is making a single AoO between each of his initiatives. A single round does, indeed, represent six seconds, but how can you determine the time that an action takes? If you judge each initiative as its own fraction of the time in a round, things begin to get funny. A third of a second would represent a single initiative count, and given a character on each count you could have - a wizard casting a fireball in, a ranger with two weapons attacking 8 times in, a fighter charging 30 feet in, a rogue climbing 25 feet up a ladder, and so on and so forth - all of which are done in .3 seconds. An initiative count does represent a moment in time, but it's meaningless. It's a reflex, it's a fraction of time you have over your opponent that gives you a slight edge. If a fighter gets an AoO at an initiative one before and one after his, those two attacks might not technically take place less than six seconds apart, cause all actions are done practically simultaneously. The ranger making the full round attack is doing that over the entire length of six seconds - and is able to throw in an AoO when an opponent gets too close at the same time.
Kratch 11-20-07, 09:33 AM	True. I'm not arguing any differently. What I'm arguing is that if I can pick any 6-second timeframe, and show you that the character is making more than one AoO, the system fails. A lot of things start to fail when you begin plucking arbitrary segments/numbers/whatevers to support your case. AoO's become available on your first initiative, therefor it stands to reason that the "6 second period" in which you are entitled to make 1 AoO within begins and ends there. Actually, you're not getting 1 AoO per 6-second frame. You're getting 1 AoO between your actions. The time between your actions is 1 round. That the time between your actions is a 6-second frame is mere coincidence. What you need to realize is that in order for the current "system" to work, you need to arbitrarily set the start and end of rounds at the character's initiative, for purposes of AoOs. As noted above, It's not arbitrary. As AoO's don't become available until the start of your turn, that is a reasonable place to begin your round for determining the timeframe in which you can take them. You're not supposed to be entitled to anything, in reality. Enforcing the no more than 1 AoO per round (no matter where you count) can be useful, tactically speaking. Sometimes, it's better for certain creatures to draw out AoOs against themselves to allow for other allies to perform distracting actions while threatened. It's like saying "ok, I'm taking this hit to give you enough cover to do what you need to do." Under the current "system," the feasability of this is questionable. This is achievable under the rules I use as well. In fact, my group uses this tactic quite often. Taking this into consideration, I think I will start to keep AoO counters for my players and monsters. Your entitled to, if your group agrees. It just seems like over-complicating the system and creating additional hardships for melee's for no good reason. That's only because you're assuming that these effects are starting on the character's turn or because the character's initiative never changes. In all fairness, AoOs aren't like most actions, since they're almost always used out-of-turn. AoO's are very similar to immediate actions, except immediate actions are given a ruling on when they refresh, which happen to be based on the turn of the character using it, not on when they get used.
PenderGrass 11-20-07, 11:47 AM	Similarly, in order to get no more than one AoO per round, you need no less than 1 round's worth of time between making AoOs. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Here you are wrong. Again. See the difference between the two things you keep saying?: "one AoO per round" and "one round of time between AoO" See it? Sheesh, I certainly hope so. The first is the RAW. The second is your erroneous extrapolation of the RAW. Have you stopped to consider the idea that you might be wrong or misinterpreting things? It stands to reason that, if you could prove that no round exists with more than one AoO taking place, you'd have no difficulty bringing that example up. Stop trying to dismiss my credibility and PROVE ME WRONG. I don't have to prove. That, you have done all by yourself. AoOs are no longer a "between your actions" mechanic. Technically, maybe not, but I do certainly know that your inane insistance that "one round of time between AoO" is even more incorrect than anything else anyone else has posted here. Also, I started DMing back in 2E, around '95-'96. Well congrats. I hope that enables you to see you keep adding your own ideas to the RAW. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-20-07, 11:55 AM	The fighter is not making more than one AoO per round. He is making a single AoO between each of his initiatives. This is only because you arbitrarily set the start and end of rounds at the character's initiative. A single round does, indeed, represent six seconds, but how can you determine the time that an action takes? If you judge each initiative as its own fraction of the time in a round, things begin to get funny. A third of a second would represent a single initiative count, and given a character on each count you could have - a wizard casting a fireball in, a ranger with two weapons attacking 8 times in, a fighter charging 30 feet in, a rogue climbing 25 feet up a ladder, and so on and so forth - all of which are done in .3 seconds. This argument is completely senseless. Actions do not represent a specific time frame. The only timeframe you can use to describe an action is "instantaneous." An initiative count does represent a moment in time, but it's meaningless. It's a reflex, it's a fraction of time you have over your opponent that gives you a slight edge. If a fighter gets an AoO at an initiative one before and one after his, those two attacks might not technically take place less than six seconds apart, cause all actions are done practically simultaneously. The ranger making the full round attack is doing that over the entire length of six seconds - and is able to throw in an AoO when an opponent gets too close at the same time. Initiative is not meaningless. It doesn't represent an edge over your opponent. Initiative is merely a sequence of turn activations. They can be used to measure time when you look at the same initiative count from one round to the next. A lot of things start to fail when you begin plucking arbitrary segments/numbers/whatevers to support your case. AoO's become available on your first initiative, therefor it stands to reason that the "6 second period" in which you are entitled to make 1 AoO within begins and ends there. This is false. AoOs don't become available on your first initiative by virtue of reaching your first initiative. This would be a false correlation. AoOs become available to you because you cease being flat-footed. For that matter, characters with Combat Reflexes or characters immune to the flat-footed condition can make AoOs before their first initiative. What you're saying is equivalent to claiming that you can only choose to buy something after receiving your first pay check. While your pay check might be the most common way to generate an income to purchase something, it doesn't mean that you need to get a pay check to buy something. In order to buy something, you merely need money, regardless of how it's provided to you. In any case, you have the burden of proof to provide any RAW that indicate that AoOs are specifically granted on your first initiative (as opposed to being allowed when you're not flat-footed). Furthermore, I'm not picking arbitrary 1-round windows. I'm considering ALL POSSIBLE 1-round windows. This is far from being arbitrary. As noted above, It's not arbitrary. As AoO's don't become available until the start of your turn, that is a reasonable place to begin your round for determining the timeframe in which you can take them. I ask you to prove this. AoO's are very similar to immediate actions, except immediate actions are given a ruling on when they refresh, which happen to be based on the turn of the character using it, not on when they get used. My point exactly. Immediate actions are explicit as to when you get the chance to perform one. AoOs are not. AoOs have no reference whatsoever to the character's turn in 3.5. This is the reason why it makes little sense to associate both. See the difference between the two things you keep saying?: "one AoO per round" and "one round of time between AoO" See it? Sheesh, I certainly hope so. The first is the RAW. The second is your erroneous extrapolation of the RAW. Please demonstrate how this is erroneous. I don't have to prove. That, you have done all by yourself. Care to point out where and how? To me, it seems like you can't come up with a way to demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that under the "refresh on your turn" system, that no more than one AoO per round is made, regardless of where you start to measure rounds. Technically, maybe not, but I do certainly know that your inane insistance that "one round of time between AoO" is even more incorrect than anything else anyone else has posted here. You're making pretty bold statements about the validity of your claims, but you've yet to prove it. I have demonstrated how I can find at least one round with more than one AoO getting done. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there's more than one AoO per round going on. The entire problem with your reasoning is that, for some reason, you're assigning the start and end of rounds to the character's turn, when it comes to AoOs, rather than assigning it according to the AoO itself.
CeilingNinja 11-20-07, 12:40 PM	You're making pretty bold statements about the validity of your claims, but you've yet to prove it. I have demonstrated how I can find at least one round with more than one AoO getting done. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there's more than one AoO per round going on. But it does not! It only proves that there is more than one AoO going off within the combat round, not a character's round. Regardless of how many AoOs go on from one character within a combat round, that character is still making only one AoO within his own round, within the frame of six seconds. In the six seconds of possible action, the character performs an AoO, there is no other AoO performed within that time frame. It's only when you look outside that specific time frame, when you include parts of the previous six seconds of possible action and parts of the current six seconds of possible action, is it possible to see more than one AoO going off.
PenderGrass 11-20-07, 12:53 PM	This is only because you arbitrarily set the start and end of rounds at the character's initiative. Which, by the definition of "round," is totally legitimate. Furthermore, I'm not picking arbitrary 1-round windows. I'm considering ALL POSSIBLE 1-round windows. This is far from being arbitrary. And you are incorrect for doing so. You're making pretty bold statements about the validity of your claims, but you've yet to prove it. 1 AoO per round. Round being from the start of my initiative count to just before the next one. Done. Again. I have demonstrated how I can find at least one round with more than one AoO getting done. Only by refusing to abide by RAW. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there's more than one AoO per round going on. Only in your mind. ...you're assigning the start and end of rounds to the character's turn... Which is a totally legitimate way to measure a round. I see no reason not to do so since it is the character that is getting one AoO and you have as yet shown anything that makes me believe I should be doing otherwise. In fact, as much as you are being oddly stubborn about this scenario, you have already admitted that you reset AoOs on the character's initiative. If you wish to measure a round from a different aspect, go ahead. Just to satisfy your own desire to be oh-so-correct about "proving" AoOs happen more than once per round. Just don't expect me, or others here, to agree that you are any more correct than someone that tells me I can't measure a day as 24 hours, sunrise to sunset, or any other way I wish to measure it. To me you are still a petulant little DM in some corner of the internet that needs to prove 61 seconds are in one minute. :dragon: *****
Zinger2099 11-20-07, 01:04 PM	Guys, guys, guys. It's a difference of opinion. RAW is silent on the issue. It could be interpreted EITHER way. Whoever is the DM at the time gets to make the call, and run it the way he understands it to make most sense. Both function, mechanically correctly, and neither break the game. You've been arguing about this for the better part of 5 pages. You might feel that the person who disagrees with you is in the wrong, but it is not your responsibility to enforce your difference of opinion on that person. Personally, I think Marcus has a very strong handle on the rules, both RAW and their intent. I respect his opinion, and when I come to these forums looking for advice on an issue, I am always pleased when he decides to answer one of my topics. That being said, I personally disagree with his oppinion on when AoO's refresh. That's fine. That's a difference of opinion. I'm not going to disrespect him for thinking differently. Show each other some courtesy and stop arguing. Your individual opinions is not RAW. Neither of you are going to give into the other. You've stated your opinion on how it works, thus you've answered the Original Poster's question in your own way. There is no point in arguing further between yourselves. This topic has more then outlived it's usefulness. I hope a moderater closes it.
Sinis 11-20-07, 04:18 PM	I really just want to clarify (for the OP, should he still be reading this debate) that just about everyone uses the "reset on the start of your character's turn" method. Guys, guys, guys. It's a difference of opinion. RAW is silent on the issue. It could be interpreted EITHER way. Whoever is the DM at the time gets to make the call, and run it the way he understands it to make most sense. Both function, mechanically correctly, and neither break the game. You've been arguing about this for the better part of 5 pages. You might feel that the person who disagrees with you is in the wrong, but it is not your responsibility to enforce your difference of opinion on that person. Personally, I think Marcus has a very strong handle on the rules, both RAW and their intent. I respect his opinion, and when I come to these forums looking for advice on an issue, I am always pleased when he decides to answer one of my topics. That being said, I personally disagree with his oppinion on when AoO's refresh. That's fine. That's a difference of opinion. I'm not going to disrespect him for thinking differently. Show each other some courtesy and stop arguing. Your individual opinions is not RAW. Neither of you are going to give into the other. You've stated your opinion on how it works, thus you've answered the Original Poster's question in your own way. There is no point in arguing further between yourselves. This topic has more then outlived it's usefulness. I hope a moderater closes it. Well said. I think that there is some misunderstanding on Marcus' point in general. All he is arguing is that it is possible for someone to take more than one attack of opportunity in an arbitrary six second span of game time. That's all, and anyone with some mathematical sense will agree. This much is strictly true, from all the examples that have been thrown around by both sides. It should be noted that Marcus doesn't even use the uber-complicated cooldown system, and simply has a critter/player's allotment of attacks of opportunity reset on their turn. The point is moot. Yes, it's possible under the (easiest to use) most commonly rule to get more than one attack of opportunity in a 6 second span of game time, and no one should care. Does anyone have any questions, before the argument ceases to continue?
BoringInfoGuy 11-20-07, 07:51 PM	I really just want to clarify (for the OP, should he still be reading this debate) that just about everyone uses the "reset on the start of your character's turn" method. Well said. I think that there is some misunderstanding on Marcus' point in general. All he is arguing is that it is possible for someone to take more than one attack of opportunity in an arbitrary six second span of game time. Furthermore, I'm not picking arbitrary 1-round windows. I'm considering ALL POSSIBLE 1-round windows. This is far from being arbitrary.That's all, and anyone with some mathematical sense will agree. This much is strictly true, from all the examples that have been thrown around by both sides. It should be noted that Marcus doesn't even use the uber-complicated cooldown system, and simply has a critter/player's allotment of attacks of opportunity reset on their turn. The point is moot. Yes, it's possible under the (easiest to use) most commonly rule to get more than one attack of opportunity in a 6 second span of game time, and no one should care. Does anyone have any questions, before the argument ceases to continue? Here's the thing. As I said to Orenmir earlier, I don't actually care what method anyone uses in their home game. What I do care about is when gamers are misinterpreting the rules. Specifically, I want everyone to understand the Core Rules as well as possible. Myself included. When I told Marcus that there comes a point when you need to consider the possibility that you are wrong, that was not an insult. That was advice. And yes, I do consider the possibility that it could be me. DM Daddy suggested a poll earlier. I'd like to suggest one now. Simply stated: After 5 pages of debate, does ANYONE think that Marcus's interpretation of Attacks of Opportunity to be correct? Since Orenmir was the person who said that the method Marcus has been defending "made the most sense to him" back on page one, I'm very interested in what he thinks now.
Marcus Majarra 11-20-07, 10:54 PM	I'm glad the arguing is over. Perhaps we should make a synthesis of the two views discussed here, in case anyone wants to refer to them (such as mvincent, since he seems to keep a database of conclusively discussed topic links).
DMDaddy 11-21-07, 01:30 AM	DM Daddy suggested a poll earlier. I'd like to suggest one now. Yes. Poll! Poll! Poll! :) :dancin: :cheer: :w00t: :clap: :bounce: After 5 pages of debate, does ANYONE think that Marcus's interpretation of Attacks of Opportunity to be correct? I don't know about correct, but it is solid based on RAW. To me, it all depends on the intent of the writers. What, are they ghosts who never frequent this board? Come on now(writers), I show my loyalty, I BUY YOUR PRODUCTS! Show your loyalty to gamers and give an answer.
Kratch 11-21-07, 12:37 PM	I looked through the FAQ, and although I didn't find anything one way or the other to answer the question, I did find the bellow quote that may help to alleviate the "but he can have 2 AoO's within 6 seconds of each other" issue. ... just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second by second representation of every maneuver ....
PenderGrass 11-21-07, 04:35 PM	I believe polls are against the CoC. :dragon: *****
Sinis 11-21-07, 06:35 PM	I believe polls are against the CoC. I'm sure that if they were reading this, they'd have stepped in by now. Anyway, my vote is for "Reset on the beginning of the player/monster's turn."
BoringInfoGuy 11-21-07, 06:41 PM	I believe polls are against the CoC. :dragon: ***** Maybe. I checked the CoC, and did not see a specific ban on Polls. There are bans on things like trying to get private information from members, or advertising. Polls regarding something like this would be against the CoC, certainly. So, a poll asking for an opinion on a rule interpretation, is probably ok. If anyone knows anything that contradicts this, please post.
PenderGrass 11-21-07, 07:03 PM	Maybe. I checked the CoC, and did not see a specific ban on Polls. There are bans on things like trying to get private information from members, or advertising. Polls regarding something like this would be against the CoC, certainly. So, a poll asking for an opinion on a rule interpretation, is probably ok. If anyone knows anything that contradicts this, please post. I say go ahead and I'll participate, so if we get banned I will be there as well. Solidarity in our defiance. Right on. Power to the DM. :dragon: *****
Max Octavious Xavier 11-22-07, 12:00 PM	When do you have AoO refresh? 1- At the start of a character/monsters turn? 1 2- At the start of a new round? 3- One round after it happns?
Ace_of_time 11-22-07, 12:34 PM	The RAW say once per round. That mean it goes off of the init count and when the counts starts over so does the AoO. If they started over on your turn it would have said that and you wouldn't even get one before it was your turn which is not the case. You get one no matter if you have went yet or not.
Sinis 11-22-07, 04:19 PM	The RAW say once per round. That mean it goes off of the init count and when the counts starts over so does the AoO. If they started over on your turn it would have said that and you wouldn't even get one before it was your turn which is not the case. You get one no matter if you have went yet or not. Emphasis mine. It looks like you're not quite aware that you don't make attacks of opportunity if you're flat footed, without combat reflexes.
Marcus Majarra 11-22-07, 04:28 PM	It looks like you're not quite aware that you don't make attacks of opportunity if you're flat footed, without combat reflexes. His point is still valid, IMHO. If a character were to become flat-footed for any reason, he would be unable to perform an AoO, regardless of the turn sequence. This makes it seem to me as if the fact that your turn comes up at the same time you normally get a chance to perform an AoO are merely synchronized. It's merely circumstance that both happen simultaneously. The idea is: you can't perform AoOs before your first turn because you're flat-footed, as opposed to because your first turn is yet to come.
Sinis 11-22-07, 04:53 PM	His point is still valid, IMHO. If a character were to become flat-footed for any reason, he would be unable to perform an AoO, regardless of the turn sequence. This makes it seem to me as if the fact that your turn comes up at the same time you normally get a chance to perform an AoO are merely synchronized. It's merely circumstance that both happen simultaneously. The idea is: you can't perform AoOs before your first turn because you're flat-footed, as opposed to because your first turn is yet to come. "Flat-footed" is defined as entirely an adjective applied to a character who has not acted yet. You'll find the condition summary in the SRD agrees with what I've said. With that in mind, a character cannot "become" flat footed in the same way a character cannot become "have not acted yet." That said, a character who can make an attack of opportunity (barring feats), only can because he has acted. By definition, if you can make an attack of opportunity (again, barring feats), it is because you are not flat-footed, that is, you have acted. That they happen simultaneously is not merely circumstance, as you put it, but rather it is by the definition of taking your action (changing your state from flat-footed to not-flat-footed).
Marcus Majarra 11-22-07, 07:38 PM	You'll find the condition summary in the SRD agrees with what I've said. You'll also find that the SRD agrees that balancing characters with less than 5 ranks in Balance are also considered flat-footed. Another example can be found in the Rules Compendium, under hiding rules. Paraphrasing the rules, when you're hidden from someone, your opponent is considered flat-footed with respect to you. This said, a character who is balancing at the start of combat will not be able to make AoOs when his first turn comes up because he remains flat-footed. As such, the ability to AoOs doesn't depend on whether or not you have taken your first turn yet or not. This becomes even more evident when you take Combat Reflexes into play. Since this feat allows you make AoOs while flat-footed, you wind up with another situation for which you have no particular reason to enable the character to make AoOs only as of his first turn. This is why being able to make AoOs coincides with being able to first act in combat only circumstantially.
Sinis 11-22-07, 10:47 PM	This is why being able to make AoOs coincides with being able to first act in combat only circumstantially. Right you are, my apologies. Surely you can forgive my error. I read the condition summary in the SRD, and it said: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. It's strange how the rules would define flat-footed as "not acted yet" instead of saying that a character who has not acted yet is under the flat-footed condition.
Marcus Majarra 11-22-07, 11:05 PM	It's alright. It's a common mistake. The thing with D&D rules is that you sometimes find information where you don't expect it. For example, the only reference against the stacking of magic effects that increase or decrease size are in the descriptions for enlarge person and reduce person. And yet, these are not the only such effects out there. I'd be curious to see how the Rules Compendium consolidates all this. For those players who plan on sticking to 3.5E, the release time is excellent.
Ace_of_time 11-25-07, 12:20 AM	Emphasis mine. It looks like you're not quite aware that you don't make attacks of opportunity if you're flat footed, without combat reflexes. At the start of combat everyone is FF but once you have move you are no longer. Wasn't aware that that started over every round? Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity. Inaction: Even if you can’t take actions, you retain your initiative score for the duration of the encounter. And that doesn't change the fact that after your first move you are no longer FF, unless someone makes you that way. Also doesn't change the fact that it runs on init count. Whether you take the AoO or not it still starts over at the start of each round. Note: that being FF as has been pointed out only stops you from being able to use the AoO and doesn't make the AoO gone. Just not able to use it till you have acted.
Sinis 11-25-07, 11:20 AM	At the start of combat everyone is FF but once you have move you are no longer. Wasn't aware that that started over every round? The Flat-footed penalty doesn't start at the "beginning of each round". I misread your post, which was particularly vague. I think the implication is that if you don't use your Attack of Opportunity before your imaginary round end/beginning point, you still have it before your action (under the "reset on your turn" system). The way you've worded your first post is confusing. You seem to imply that you don't get an attack of opportunity before your action. This fine in the first round of combat, but in subsequent rounds, you *do* get an attack of op "before" your next action, because *everything* is before your next action. And that doesn't change the fact that after your first move you are no longer FF, unless someone makes you that way. Also doesn't change the fact that it runs on init count. Whether you take the AoO or not it still starts over at the start of each round. I can see how that would be your interpretation of the rules. I certainly don't agree with it, because it's as mechanically incorrect as Attacks of Opportunity refreshing on the PC/monsters turn, but without any of the simplicity that makes that system preferable. Note: that being FF as has been pointed out only stops you from being able to use the AoO and doesn't make the AoO gone. Just not able to use it till you have acted. Right you are, but it doesn't change anything. In fact, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. ----- I've read through 5 pages of argument on these three ways of determining when Attacks of Opportunity reset. If you're saying that it resets at the "beginning of the round", whenever that is, there are pages of argument for, against, showing similarity to other methods that could be read through. Frankly, I think that the "resets at the start of the round" method is the worst of the three distinct viewpoints we've seen.
Ace_of_time 11-25-07, 03:08 PM	I love how people keep saying "your interpretation". It is what they RAW says. It doesn't say that the get AoO on your turn. It says each round and to a DM the rounds start over after the end of the init count, At 0. Then the next round of 6 seconds start and people act from highest init to lowest init til the counts reaches zero and then another round start. since th RAW says it you get them each round, not on your turn, then you get them back at the begin of each round, not the begining of your turn. You don't need an interpretation, It is just as the rule say. Note: that if it was the way you say then it wouldn't matter if you were FF at the start of combat because you wouldn't get one till your turn, which is not the case. Everyone gets an AoO at the first round of combat and can't use it till they have move or acted.
BoringInfoGuy 11-25-07, 05:07 PM	I love how people keep saying "your interpretation". It is what they RAW says. It doesn't say that the get AoO on your turn. It says each round and to a DM the rounds start over after the end of the init count, At 0. Then the next round of 6 seconds start and people act from highest init to lowest init til the counts reaches zero and then another round start. since th RAW says it you get them each round, not on your turn, then you get them back at the begin of each round, not the begining of your turn. You don't need an interpretation, It is just as the rule say. Note: that if it was the way you say then it would matter if you were FF at the start of combat because you would get one till your turn, which is not the case. Everyone gets an AoO at the first round of combat and can't use it till they have move or acted. Actually Ace, Raw says that the usually way to define a round is from an initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. That point has been brought up and emphasized repeatedly in this debate. "To a DM the rounds start over after the end of the init count, At 0." That is not RAW. What you are saying is that to YOU, the rounds start over after the end of the init count. That does not fit the description of the combat round found in the PHB. RAW also says that it is on your turn that you get to take all your actions. It points out two sets of exemptions, the Ready / Delay action, and the AoO. Ready and Delay are both special actions that you decide to take on your turn, but then happen later in the round. Both change your initiative count to when they happen. (Yes, this is very simplified, I just don't feel like giving a full description). Still, it is only on your turn that you are able to declare that you are going to be using these actions. If the Ready trigger does not happen before your initiative count comes up again, then it is lost. (But you can declare that you are going with the same trigger for another round). Delay lets you decide to hold you action until any point later in the round, but if the player doesn't decide to use his delayed action before his initiative count comes again, then it is lost. (Again, you can declare that you are going to delay for another round). It is worthwhile to note that both actions, if unused, reset at the start of the characters turn. Not at the top of initiative. The AoO, on the other hand, is an action you get to take only if an enemy provokes it. The description of Attacks of Opportunity say that you may only take one per round. Now, you believe that means from the top of initiative. But does that really fit? Does any other action reset at the top of initiative? What reasoning do you have for AoO's to refresh at the top of initiative? What makes the top of initiative so special that every character regains the ability to take an AoO at that moment? Every other action that a character can take is tied into his initiative count. At that moment, he is able to take any actions available to him. Would it not fit better for that moment to also be the moment when he regains the ability to take an Attack of Opportunity? On a final note, I agree with Sinis. Your posts have been rather vague and hard to follow.
Marcus Majarra 11-25-07, 05:19 PM	IMHO, the claim that AoOs should refresh at the "start of the round" is almost as valid as the idea that AoOs should refresh on your turn. In both cases, we're picking an arbitrary point in time from which to measure rounds elapsed with respect to AoOs. The only difference is that in the former case, the point in time is the same for all combat participants, whereas in the latter, the point in time is relative to each participant. The end result is the same, within an arbitrary one-round window, no more than one AoO is taken per character. So basically, we have three ways of looking at it: 1) AoOs become accessible at a fixed initiative for everyone. 2) AoOs become accessible at a fixed initiative for each participant. 3) AoOs become accessible at a variable initiative based on when the last AoO was made, for each participant. Would it not fit better for that moment to also be the moment when he regains the ability to take an Attack of Opportunity? Ok, keep in mind that this has yet to be demonstrated. Nothing in the RAW directly links a character's turn with the AoOs he can take. This is because AoOs are independent from a character's turn, unlike every other kind of action. A more correct formulation would be: "would it not fit better for that moment to also be the moment when he regains the ability to take his turn?"
StevenO 11-25-07, 06:03 PM	For everyone who says a "round" is initiative count 20 down to 0 does that mean my Rogue who has rolled a 19 with DEX 24 and Improved Initiative doesn't get to go because my modified init is 30? Or what about my poisoned, bow legged cleric who only managed to roll a 1 to go with the current DEX 6 leaving him at -1? There is a reason a "round" lasts from one initiative to the same spot the next time because you you consider a round to go from 20 down to 1 with a reset at zero neither of these characters would ever go. If anyone remembers the OP's problem was a character getting TWO AoO within another character's round although the character making the AoO was only taking one AoO between its turns. If you include Combat Reflexes (CR) into the equation resetting AoO at any point other than that character turn can really abuse the possible number of AoO made between initiative points. Consider a DEX 18 CR character with init count 11. If you say AoO reset at 20 then this character could take FIVE AoO at the "end" of one round and FIVE more before acting a second time during the "next" round.
Marcus Majarra 11-25-07, 06:18 PM	Consider a DEX 18 CR character with init count 11. If you say AoO reset at 20 then this character could take FIVE AoO at the "end" of one round and FIVE more before acting a second time during the "next" round. The same thing can happen when AoOs refresh on the character's turn. This kind of system only works when you look at rounds through arbitrary windows that do not depend on when the actual AoOs take place.
StevenO 11-25-07, 07:19 PM	Not exactly. When AoO refresh on the character's action they only get to use the AoO alotment once until they go again. If they refresh at some other time it is possible to get two alotments of AoO between a character's actions. Both may be able to represent the same number of possible attacks is a given "six second period" but from that character's point of view one implies they had an incredibly awesome round (doubling up AoO) followed by one they couldn't do anything in while the other represent a sustained ability.
Marcus Majarra 11-25-07, 07:55 PM	When AoO refresh on the character's action they only get to use the AoO alotment once until they go again. If they refresh at some other time it is possible to get two alotments of AoO between a character's actions. Both may be able to represent the same number of possible attacks is a given "six second period" but from that character's point of view one implies they had an incredibly awesome round (doubling up AoO) followed by one they couldn't do anything in while the other represent a sustained ability. This is only true because you're choosing to look at things from the perspective of the character perfoming the AoOs, based on when in the initiative his turn comes up. The truth is: resetting AoOs on the character's turn has an edge over resetting on a fixed point in time in that you're guaranteeing that they don't get more AoOs than normal within a specific one-round window: between their actions. It's still quite possible to achieve more AoOs than normally allowed, when you look at it from other one-round windows. For example, a fighter with Dex 14 and Combat Reflexes could attempt 3 AoOs right before his turn, and 3 AoOs right after his turn. This is what I meant that the same thing can happen when you refresh all AoOs on a specific initiative. Using this methodology, the limit on roundly AoOs depends on where you measure rounds.
weasel0 11-25-07, 11:59 PM	This is only true because you're choosing to look at things from the perspective of the character perfoming the AoOs, based on when in the initiative his turn comes up. The truth is: resetting AoOs on the character's turn has an edge over resetting on a fixed point in time in that you're guaranteeing that they don't get more AoOs than normal within a specific one-round window: between their actions. It's still quite possible to achieve more AoOs than normally allowed, when you look at it from other one-round windows. For example, a fighter with Dex 14 and Combat Reflexes could attempt 3 AoOs right before his turn, and 3 AoOs right after his turn. This is what I meant that the same thing can happen when you refresh all AoOs on a specific initiative. Using this methodology, the limit on roundly AoOs depends on where you measure rounds. But arn't we supposed to be playing our characters from their point of view? So my Fighter Bob, Dex 14 and CR takes his turn... he takes all HIS AoOs(3) throughout the other participants turns and finally it is his turn again. That's one round for Bob, he now has 3 more AoOs he can potentially take. I think this view makes the most sense and the least amount of bookwork. The above paragraph is highly biased to my own opinion.
Marcus Majarra 11-26-07, 12:58 AM	But arn't we supposed to be playing our characters from their point of view? Not necessarily. All effects that need some kind of measuring in a number of rounds are always measured from the point in time during which they take place. For example, casting feather fall is an immediate action that lasts 1 round/level. When do you start counting down the duration? At the caster's initiative, or when the spell is actually cast? Coherently, it would have to be when the spell is cast, because the action of casting the spell can be different from the character's turn. Similarly, AoOs are almost always made on an initiative different from yours. It's more coherent for AoO refreshing mechanisms be based on the AoOs themselves, rather than the acting character's initiative (since AoOs are unrelated to this initiative). Furthermore, the entire refresh on your action mechanic raises other questions when you look at actions that change your initiative. What happens when you choose to delay? Do the AoOs refresh at the time your turn first comes up or when you choose to take your actions? The same applies to readied actions. When do AoOs come into play? In this respect, it's far easier to have AoOs refresh based on when AoOs are actually used. This avoids all possible questions as to what happens when your initiative changes and guarantees that no one does more AoOs than normal, no matter from which point of view you choose to measure rounds. In other words, no matter what the perspective, you're always getting up to one AoO per round.
Ace_of_time 11-26-07, 02:05 AM	Actually Ace, Raw says that the usually way to define a round is from an initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. That point has been brought up and emphasized repeatedly in this debate. "To a DM the rounds start over after the end of the init count, At 0." That is not RAW. What you are saying is that to YOU, the rounds start over after the end of the init count. That does not fit the description of the combat round found in the PHB. RAW also says that it is on your turn that you get to take all your actions. It points out two sets of exemptions, the Ready / Delay action, and the AoO. Ready and Delay are both special actions that you decide to take on your turn, but then happen later in the round. Both change your initiative count to when they happen. (Yes, this is very simplified, I just don't feel like giving a full description). Still, it is only on your turn that you are able to declare that you are going to be using these actions. If the Ready trigger does not happen before your initiative count comes up again, then it is lost. (But you can declare that you are going with the same trigger for another round). Delay lets you decide to hold you action until any point later in the round, but if the player doesn't decide to use his delayed action before his initiative count comes again, then it is lost. (Again, you can declare that you are going to delay for another round). It is worthwhile to note that both actions, if unused, reset at the start of the characters turn. Not at the top of initiative. The AoO, on the other hand, is an action you get to take only if an enemy provokes it. The description of Attacks of Opportunity say that you may only take one per round. Now, you believe that means from the top of initiative. But does that really fit? Does any other action reset at the top of initiative? What reasoning do you have for AoO's to refresh at the top of initiative? What makes the top of initiative so special that every character regains the ability to take an AoO at that moment? Every other action that a character can take is tied into his initiative count. At that moment, he is able to take any actions available to him. Would it not fit better for that moment to also be the moment when he regains the ability to take an Attack of Opportunity? On a final note, I agree with Sinis. Your posts have been rather vague and hard to follow.No I post what I read and what I think about what I read. HOW COMBAT WORKS Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence: 1. Each combatant starts out flat-footed. Once a combatant acts, he or she is no longer flat-footed. 2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents at the start of the battle. If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds of combat begin. The combatants who are aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take one action (either a standard action or a move action) during the surprise round. Combatants who were unaware do not get to act in the surprise round. If no one or everyone starts the battle aware, there is no surprise round. 3. Combatants who have not yet rolled initiative do so. All combatants are now ready to begin their first regular round of combat. 4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest). 5. When everyone has had a turn, the combatant with the highest initiative acts again, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.As you can see rounds run from highest to lowest init counts. Once the lowest has gone the next round begins and you go from highest to lowest again. So that we are clear here. AoO start at the first round of combat or as stated above the person with the highest init count. Once that point comes around again all the AoO start over for the new round of combat. We are not talking about spell here which start there time of rounds on your turn because that is when you casted them. AoO starts at the begining of the first round of combat and renew at that point every round there after. A round is the time it takes everyone to take their turn in combat before it is the first person's turn again. Don't forget that each round is still only 6 seconds long no matter how many people act in it. Each person takes their 6 seconds of combat in init order but all are really acting at the same time in real speed.
Marcus Majarra 11-26-07, 04:53 AM	AoO start at the first round of combat or as stated above the person with the highest init count. This is stated nowhere in your quote. In fact, there's no mention of any kind of AoOs in the entire quote. What you quoted is simply how to resolve turns based on initiative.
CeilingNinja 11-26-07, 08:53 AM	As you can see rounds run from highest to lowest init counts. Once the lowest has gone the next round begins and you go from highest to lowest again. So that we are clear here. AoO start at the first round of combat or as stated above the person with the highest init count. Once that point comes around again all the AoO start over for the new round of combat. We are not talking about spell here which start there time of rounds on your turn because that is when you casted them. AoO starts at the begining of the first round of combat and renew at that point every round there after. A round is the time it takes everyone to take their turn in combat before it is the first person's turn again. Don't forget that each round is still only 6 seconds long no matter how many people act in it. Each person takes their 6 seconds of combat in init order but all are really acting at the same time in real speed. Combat rounds are different from a round. There is no correlation between the two - as effects and events continue throughout the entire time. If you measure one thing by the start of a round, then you have to measure everything that lasts for a certain number of rounds or only can be done a certain number of times a round the same way. Otherwise, how do you break it down? It's for ease of use to just state the start of a round is at a character's initiative and the end of a round is immediately before that character's initiative - as is mentioned in the description of a round in a spell casting. If we say that a spell lasts for 3 rounds, it lasts three rounds according to when the character cast the spell. If we look at immediate action-type spells (feather fall for example) - then they can occur and last for a round on some time other than your own initiative - so they'd last from 11-11 initiative even if your initiative was something like 13. Sure this seems like it would help Marcus's case to how AoOs refresh depending upon when they were performed, but you have to remember the rest of the description of immediate actions. You can cast them whenever you want, but only one time per turn. You can only cast them again starting upon your initiative. Which actually correlates perfectly with what most other people are saying. (Complete Arcane - page 86 sidebar)
Ace_of_time 11-26-07, 01:39 PM	No you have to measure it from when you get it. Spells start on your turn when you cast it. So the rounds are timed on your turn. AoO starts at the start of combat so are timed by the start of each combat rounds. It doesn't matter when it start it would still reset every 6 seconds. I have already post some that said when AoO start. Didn't see the point in posting it again. And again if it starts on your turn it would say on your turn. It only says once per round. As pointed out CR feat lets a person use AoO even if he was FF. Meaning even on the first round of combat if he hasn't acted yet he would still get a AoO. If it started on his turn the even with CR feat he still wouldn't get AoO till his turn, which is not the case.
Marcus Majarra 11-26-07, 07:08 PM	Sure this seems like it would help Marcus's case to how AoOs refresh depending upon when they were performed, but you have to remember the rest of the description of immediate actions. You can cast them whenever you want, but only one time per turn. You can only cast them again starting upon your initiative. Actually, taking an immediate action consumes your swift action for the next turn (when taken out-of-turn). So in this respect, they're completely different from AoOs. In any case, I wasn't arguing this point based on what gets spent where. I was arguing mostly for the purpose of measuring rounds. Basically, any effect that is based on rounds needs to be measured from the point in time that effect actually takes place. While I can't find a concrete example of this, imagine you had a 1 round/level immediate action spell that dealt damage to an area once per round. It stands to reason that this damage would be dealt every round on the same initiative that the spell was cast. AoO starts at the start of combat so are timed by the start of each combat rounds. Actually, this is not true. You're entitled AoO only when one is provoked from you. This has nothing to do with the start of combat. It stands to reason that they would be timed from the moment they're provoked. As pointed out CR feat lets a person use AoO even if he was FF. Meaning even on the first round of combat if he hasn't acted yet he would still get a AoO. If it started on his turn the even with CR feat he still wouldn't get AoO till his turn, which is not the case. This (and the fact that the ready/delay questions become non-issues) are the only advantages for resetting AoOs at the "start of the round" over resetting AoOs on characters' turns.
Ace_of_time 11-27-07, 12:47 AM	You have 1 per round. If that AoO has not been used for what ever reason the at the start of the next round everyone gets 1 more for that round and losses the one from last round. Your statement is like saying a person gets 3 1st level spells per day but that day doesn't start till you use the first spell and then you time 24 hours from then.
Marcus Majarra 11-27-07, 03:04 AM	Your statement is like saying a person gets 3 1st level spells per day but that day doesn't start till you use the first spell and then you time 24 hours from then. This statement, as explained earlier in the thread, is incorrect. You don't get 3 1st-level spells per day. You get to prepare your spells once per day. This example correlates poorly to AoOs, since different kinds of spellcasters prepare their spells on differing cycles. For example, divine casters prepare spells every 24 hours, whereas wizards can prepare their spells many times during the day.
Ace_of_time 11-27-07, 06:49 AM	No they dont. It is true they can leave some spots open to put spells in latter if they want but their is still that hour to begin with.Spell Preparation Time: After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state. But for now we will say cleric. Your statement would hold true for them as well. They get spell per day at 24 hours after casting the first spell that day.:rolleyes:
CeilingNinja 11-27-07, 08:56 AM	Actually, taking an immediate action consumes your swift action for the next turn (when taken out-of-turn). So in this respect, they're completely different from AoOs. In any case, I wasn't arguing this point based on what gets spent where. I was arguing mostly for the purpose of measuring rounds. Basically, any effect that is based on rounds needs to be measured from the point in time that effect actually takes place. While I can't find a concrete example of this, imagine you had a 1 round/level immediate action spell that dealt damage to an area once per round. It stands to reason that this damage would be dealt every round on the same initiative that the spell was cast. Yes actually. In the case of the immediate action spell - it is dealt every round on the same initiative when it was cast. But the immediate action spell doesn't refresh until your next turn after you cast the spell. But anyway - was kind of a bad example, I'll give that to you. Until we truly get a concrete - 'THIS is when AoOs refresh' - this debate will likely continue until we're all blue in the face and no one is any closer to a new argument. I will continue to refresh AoOs on the character's turn. Hope to debate with you elsewhere, Marcus. You have good skills.
Marcus Majarra 11-27-07, 01:14 PM	Until we truly get a concrete - 'THIS is when AoOs refresh' - this debate will likely continue until we're all blue in the face and no one is any closer to a new argument. Or until 4E comes out, whichever comes first. I know I'll be switching over and cease 3.5E rules counseling (just like I have for 3.0E). I will continue to refresh AoOs on the character's turn. Hope to debate with you elsewhere, Marcus. You have good skills. You, too, have admirable argue-fu.
Ace_of_time 11-27-07, 07:08 PM	Lets try this another way. Say there is a fighter named frank. Frank and his party get into a fight. Now frank has combat reflexes. They roll their init as well as the monsters. frank gets 10 and the rest of the group get 15, 3, 9. and the monsters get 11, 18, and 1. Now on the first round of combat monster 11 moves through franks threaten area. Does frank get AoO or not?
BoringInfoGuy 11-28-07, 02:27 AM	Lets try this another way. Say there is a fighter named frank. Frank and his party get into a fight. Now frank has combat reflexes. They roll their init as well as the monsters. frank gets 10 and the rest of the group get 15, 3, 9. and the monsters get 11, 18, and 1. Now on the first round of combat monster 11 moves through franks threaten area. Does frank get AoO or not? Combat reflexes allows a character to make Attacks of Opportunity even while flat footed. So yes, Frank would be able to take an Attack of Opportunity. However, every feat creates an exemption to the standard rules. In one way or another, the act of choosing a feat is a choice to have some standard game rule no longer apply normally. We can go back to a challenge Marcus sent me that I didn't have a chance to respond to earlier: I'll just toss in Combat Reflexes into the fray, which do allow you to execute AoOs while flat-footed. Tell me, how many AoOs does a character with Dex 10 and Combat Reflexes get, before his first turn comes up? It gives you the ability to make extra attacks of opportunity per round based on your dex modifier, and it also gives you an extra time frame when you can make attacks of Opportunity. So after the character's first round ends, he can potentially make two Attacks of Opportunity, even with a 10 Dex. But what does that prove? That a character who takes a feat that allows him to get more Attacks of Opportunity than a character without the feat can get more Attacks of Opportunity than a character without the feat. Actually, now I'm interested. What does each AoO refresh system look like in action? We'll use the 10 Dex Fighter, and add a surprise round as well. In all three examples, the party is ambushed by the monsters. Only the Fighter and the Rogue noticed the creatures in time to act in the surprise round. The Fighter has Combat reflexes and 10 Dex. The Rogue does not have Combat reflexes. The Creatures are easily distracted and constantly provoke AoO's. Refresh at Initiative method. Surprise Round Gnoll - 18 Fighter takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Rogue may now take AoO. Goblin -15 Rogue takes AoO on Goblin. Fighter - 14 Fighter may take AoO. Orc - 13 Fighter takes AoO on Orc. Kobold - 10 Round 1 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Rogue may take AoO Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Fighter may take AoO Orc - 13 Fighter takes AoO on Orc. Kobold - 10 Rogue takes AoO on Kobold. Wizard - 5 With this method, even a character without a 0 Dex Modifier (or worse) has the potential to make more Attacks of Opportunity than a character without this feat. Refresh at Top of Initiative method. Surprise Round. Fighter gets AoO he can take even Flat-Footed, Rogue gets AoO he can take after his Init. Gnoll - 18 Fighter takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Rogue takes AoO on Goblin. Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Round 1 AoO's reset. The cleric and Wizard can't take them until their initiative. Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue takes AoO on Gnoll Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Fighter takes AoO on Kobold. Wizard - 5 With this method, the Fighter has the same potential number of Attacks of Opportunity as the Rogue. The only difference combat reflexes makes is that the Rogue is unable to take an AoO against the Gnoll in the surprise round, while the Fighter can. 6-second Cooldown method: Gnoll - 18 Fighter takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Rogue takes AoO on Goblin. Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Round 1 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Fighter's AoO cooldown over, may take AoO if provoked. Takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Rogue's AoO cooldown over, may take AoO if provoked. Takes AoO on Goblin. Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 This method would appear to give the same number of Attacks of Opportunity as the Top of Initiative method, but there is a problem. See it yet? From the Surprise round initiative 18 to Round 1 initiative 18 was not 6 seconds. In the surprise round, you can only take a standard action, not a full action. Therefore, the surprise round is only about half the length of a normal round, or 3 seconds. It makes sense, surprise only lasts a moment, so you get only a small amount of time to take advantage of it. No, RAW does not say so right out, but it fits that if you can only take half your normal actions, it's because you only have half the time to do it in. So, in keeping with the 6 second cool down, we have to wait until later in the initiative count for the Fighter (and rogue) to be able to take another Attack of Opportunity. How to figure out how long to wait? What I first came up with is to take the number of creatures acting in a round and divide that by two. Half a round would be 4 initiatives. That would put the fighters actual 6-second cool down at the Fighters initiative again (Gnoll, Rogue, Goblin, Fighter), so the first creature he could take a provoked AoO on would be the orc. The Rogue, in turn, gets his next chance at an AoO no later than the Kobolds initiative (Goblin, Fighter, Orc, Kobold). If he had instead taken first AoO on the Orc or Kobold, he wouldn't be able to take another until after the Gnoll's turn. (Orc, Kobold, Wizard, Cleric and Kobold, Wizard, Cleric Gnoll - based on the assumption that the rogue will not want to take an Attack of Opportunity on a party member). This method is simple enough, but is it accurate? Not really, since the time between each initiative is not even. Looking for better accuracy, I instead come up with a method to assign a second count to each initiative. Let's see, there are 16 possible initiatives between 20 and 5. That time frame needs to be 6 seconds, so. . . Each possible initiative count from 20 to 5 takes 0.375 seconds. Does that work? Init 20, 0 to 0.375 seconds. Init 19, 0.375 to 0.75 seconds. Init 18, 0.75 to 1.125 seconds. Init 17, 1.125 to 1.5 seconds. Init 16, 1.5 to 1.875 seconds. Init 15, 1.875 to 2.25 seconds. Init 14, 2.25 to 2.625 seconds. Init 13, 2.625 to 3 seconds. Init 12, 3 to 3.375. Init 11, 3.375 to 3.75 seconds. Init 10, 3.75 to 4.125 seconds. Init 9, 4.125 to 4.5 seconds. Init 8, 4.5 seconds to 4.875 seconds. Init 7, 4.875 to 5.25 seconds. Init 6, 5.25 to 5.625 seconds. Init 5, 5.625 to 6 seconds. Ok, the math checks out. There, from the top of the first initiative to the end of the last initiative, exactly 6 seconds. Which would mean that if the Fighter thought that his cool down was over at initiative 18, then it would really be 3 seconds later, at initiative 10, which would be the kobold. The rogue, in turn, who thought he got his AoO refreshed at Initiative 15, is instead waiting until Initiative count 7, which is after the Kobold, but before the wizard. The first opponent he can get an AoO on is the Gnoll at initiative 18 in round 2. Looks like the simple system was not very accurate at all. Darn it, I still missed something. Anyone catch it already? In the surprise round, you only have time to take partial actions. As soon as the first regular round starts, characters get to take full actions instead of only partial. So the time from an initiative count in the surprise round to the same count in the first round is going to be anywhere from 3 to almost 6 seconds. So now we need to figure how much time has passed in the surprise round after the AoO, and use that number to figure out how long you need to wait after that to take another AoO. So, in the surprise round, we have init 18 to 10. 9 possible initiative counts. So each possible Initiative in the Surprise round takes 0.333inf seconds. For the Fighter, we get off easy. His AoO happened right when the round started. So, if 3 seconds have passed during the Surprise round then 3 seconds of his cool down have already occurred by the end of the Surprise round. So, by then counting down the remaining 3 seconds in the first normal round, we end up at his AoO refreshing at Initiative 12. So he just misses out on the Orc, but he could take an Attack of Opportunity on the Kobold if the creature provokes one. The Rogue, however, took his AoO later in the round, at Init 15. So, from init 15 to 10 would be, what, 1.998 seconds? Init 15, 0 to 0.333 seconds. Init 14, 0.333 to 0.666 seconds. Init 13, 0.666 to 0.999 seconds. Init 12, 0.999 to 1.332 seconds. Init 11, 1.332 to 1.665 seconds. Init 10, 1.665 to 1.998 seconds. So with just under 2 seconds having passed in the Surprise round after his AoO, he needs to wait a little over 4 seconds in the 1st round for his AoO to refresh. That would make his AoO refresh at init 9. (More accurately, it would place it during initiative 10, but right at the tail 0.123 seconds of it. Since AoO's take place before the action that provokes it, then I'd say that the Rogue can't take an AoO until initiative 9 regardless.) Since there are no opponents left for him to make AoO's on this round, the earliest provoked AoO he could take would be the Gnoll at init 18 in the second round. Let us look at that again. 6-second Cooldown method, accurate timing: Gnoll - 18 Fighter takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Rogue takes AoO on Goblin. Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Round 1 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 . Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 - 12 Fighter AoO cooldown over, he may take an AoO if provoked. Kobold - 10 Fighter takes AoO on Kobold. - 9 Rogue AoO cooldown over, he may take an AoO if provoked. Wizard - 5 Round 2 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue takes AoO on Gnoll. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 . Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 Does the 6 second cool down system truly look coherent with the rest of the rules? Obviously Marcus, it does to you. To me, a cool down system strikes me as blatantly inconsistent with the rest of the rules. When a wizard sits down to prepare his spells, any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit. That's all. No mention of having to wait 8 hours or 24 hours. Simply that if a spell was cast within the last 8 hours, it is already considered used for the day. If a wizard casts one spell 7 hours before preparing his spells for the day, and another one just before he starts preparing spells, then both spells are considered used until the same time the next day when the wizard prepares spells again. You do not need to keep track of what exact hour the spell was cast in to make certain that a set numbers of hours pass before being able to cast it again. We find that this rule is consistent with all spell casters, be they spontaneous casters or preparation casters, arcane or divine. When we look at casters using actions, we find a special action called the Immidiate action. Immediate Actions Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed. It's already been declared a bad comparison to an Attack of Opportunity, but it is a good example of the game mechanics. Let us really look at how it works. Takes a small amount of time that is greater than a free action. For most purposes it is considered the same as a swift action - if you use an immediate action, it is considered your swift action for the round. Unlike a swift action, you can use an immediate action before your turn - however, if you do so you can not use another swift or immidiate action until AFTER you NEXT turn. (This really is a take home point. The wait time from an Immediate action taken before your turn is tied to the initiative count of the character taking the Immediate action, not the initiative count where the Immediate action took place. Also notice how similar it is to how spells cast in the last 8 hours before a caster prepares spells counts against his daily limit. Consistency.) Of course, I haven't forgotten this part of the description of swift actions: Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.which also holds true for Immediate actions. Clearly, the Attack of Opportunity is not an Immediate action, despite being similar in both being able to be used outside the characters initiative. So, what are the differences? An Attack of Oppotunity is described as being a Free attack in it's description. PHB pg 137. If you also check page 135, Combat Basics, it goes even further describing an AoO as "A free melee attack that doesn't take up any of your actions." Clearly an AoO takes less effort to perform than a Swift or Immediate action. An Immediate action may be taken on a initiative different from the characters, but an AoO almost exclusively is. When an Immediate action is taken before your turn, you must wait until after your next turn has ended before you can use another swift or immediate action. An AoO has no such wait period in it's description. Immediate actions are taken when a player chooses, AoO's can only be taken in response to an opponent provoking one. I can't point to a section in the PHB, the PHB errata, the FAQ, or any other source I can think of and say, "This says that AoO's refresh on your initiative" But I can show that doing so is consistent with the rest of the DnD rule system. You can - and probably would - point out that AoO's say once per round, while Swift actions are described as once per turn, and claim that is the difference that makes it so you need to use a 6-second cool down system. The D&D system does not use a x second, x minute, x hour, x day cool down. There is a popular game system that heavily uses a cool down mechanic. World of Warcraft. If you have to pull a game mechanic found in a completely differnent system, then I don't think you can really claim to be cohesive. You certainly aren't being consistent.
Marcus Majarra 11-28-07, 03:50 AM	It gives you the ability to make extra attacks of opportunity per round based on your dex modifier, and it also gives you an extra time frame when you can make attacks of Opportunity. The former, we've got it on print. The latter, you're pulling out of a hat. Combat Reflexes lets you perform AoOs while flat-footed, which is a condition, as opposed to a time frame. Furthermore, this condition is not exclusively associated with a given time frame. From the Surprise round initiative 18 to Round 1 initiative 18 was not 6 seconds. In the surprise round, you can only take a standard action, not a full action. Therefore, the surprise round is only about half the length of a normal round, or 3 seconds. It makes sense, surprise only lasts a moment, so you get only a small amount of time to take advantage of it. No, RAW does not say so right out, but it fits that if you can only take half your normal actions, it's because you only have half the time to do it in. This is entirely fictitious. A surprise round is not three seconds long. Like any round, it is six seconds long. You're merely extrapolating this idea based on the false assumption that actions can be measured in time increments. The very fact that many actions exist that involve making the same kind of attacks is proof that you cannot measure actions with time. For example, based on your idea, a standard attack requires 3 seconds. On the other hand, you have AoOs which are resolved exactly like standard attacks, but in order for these to exist, they would need to require no time at all, since your standard attack eats up 3 seconds and your move action eats up your other 3 seconds of the round. This is why the system seems incoherent to you. You've got the wrong idea on actions and time to begin with. Actions and time are not measured on the same scale. This pretty much invalidates your entire explanation after that point. To me, a cool down system strikes me as blatantly inconsistent with the rest of the rules. When a wizard sits down to prepare his spells, any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit. That's all. No mention of having to wait 8 hours or 24 hours. Simply that if a spell was cast within the last 8 hours, it is already considered used for the day. If a wizard casts one spell 7 hours before preparing his spells for the day, and another one just before he starts preparing spells, then both spells are considered used until the same time the next day when the wizard prepares spells again. On the other hand, divine spellcasters prepare their spells at a fixed time every day, meaning there is exactly 24 hours (of cooldown) between the start of preparation periods. It's easy to say that the system I'm proposing isn't consistent with the rest of the rules when you choose to pick a single system (which itself isn't consistent with similar ones) and generalize from there. If I choose to look to divine spell preparation as a basis for comparison, my system is very consistent. You do not need to keep track of what exact hour the spell was cast in to make certain that a set numbers of hours pass before being able to cast it again. We find that this rule is consistent with all spell casters, be they spontaneous casters or preparation casters, arcane or divine. This much is true, however. This correlates poorly to AoOs, nonetheless, but established a better parallel with immediate actions. Just like using an immediate action between your turns consumes your swift action for your next turn, so to does casting a spell in the 8 hours preceding preparation consumes that spell slot for the next daily preparation. This really is a take home point. The wait time from an Immediate action taken before your turn is tied to the initiative count of the character taking the Immediate action, not the initiative count where the Immediate action took place. This was never the point. I never argued the recovery mechanic for immediate/swift actions, since it is clearly written in the SRD. What I was arguing was on how to measure time relative to an event that occurs outside your turn, to which immediate actions do correlate. AoOs have no built-in recovery mechanic text, unlike immediate/swift actions. It's never indicated that your roundly AoOs have to be taken within the window of one round between each of your turns. All we know is that these are available to you once per round. The only way to measure time/rounds relative to AoOs is to measure it from the moment the AoO takes place, since the AoO doesn't exist until that moment. An AoO has no such wait period in it's description. Yes it does. The fact that you can make one per round indicates a wait period. Swift actions can be made once per turn, which means that once you make one, you need to wait until your next turn to make one again. Relative to this swift action, your next turn occurs the next time initiative reaches your count. Similarly, AoOs can be made once per round, which means that once you make one, you need to wait until the next round to make one again. Relative to this AoO, the next round occurs the next time initiative reaches the count on which the AoO was made. You can - and probably would - point out that AoO's say once per round, while Swift actions are described as once per turn, and claim that is the difference that makes it so you need to use a 6-second cool down system. Indeed it is the very reason. The D&D system does not use a x second, x minute, x hour, x day cool down. Yes it does. Look at divine spell preparation. It has a 24-hour cooldown. Look at turns. They have a 1-round cooldown. Look at effect durations. They are essentially a cooldown until the effect ends.
Ace_of_time 11-28-07, 02:42 PM	So spell casting is not good good example. How about rage, turn/rebuke undead, spell like abilities. Do you get them back every mourning or 24 hours after you use the first one. Now for the CR feat. Page 135 in the PHB under combat basics say that you threaten all 5' squares around you even when it is not your turn.( since it is not your turn until your init count will assume they mean from the start of a round to the end of a round. Also seems funny that AoO are not measured in combat rounds but are in the combat basic part of the PHB and only used during combat). Any enemy preforming an act in that square that provokes a AoO from you. You can read the rest if you want. CR only allows you to use more AoO per round and to do it FF. The AoO how ever is given when the enemy provokes it. Are you saying that a PC can't threat all 5' squares around him until his/ her turn. If not then any enemy in the round provokes an AoO from you with certain acts in those squares. Now you can only take one of those AoO per round. ( not per turn, not on your init count, and certainly not 6 seconds after you use it) Now even if you have used that one for the round that doesn't stop the enemy from provoking them only from you getting to act on it. Now if a action or feat in D&D went against a rule in places they put that in the entry for that action. It doesn't say you AoO for the round comes back at the start of each round in the normal part of the entry for CR feat. Nor does it say that AoO only come back on you turn if you use it before your next turn. Now it is this way so as to not overwhelm the DM with things to keep track of. Having a DM, along with everything he has to keep track of in combat have to keep on with the 5-7 different times of each AoO of each person each round and whether they used them. It is easier to just let them all get them back at the same times. It is a free attack. doesn't take any time from the round. everything in the rounds stops until the action is resolved then combat continues as normal as if nothing happened. Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. 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). It makes no sense to allow a AoO no matter if it is you turn or not and then make people wait till it is there turn again when the whole AoO system runs off of the begin to the end of a combat round.
Sinis 11-28-07, 03:58 PM	So spell casting is not good good example. How about rage, turn/rebuke undead, spell like abilities. Do you get them back every mourning or 24 hours after you use the first one. Now for the CR feat. Page 135 in the PHB under combat basics say that you threaten all 5' squares around you even when it is not your turn.( since it is not your turn until your init count will assume they mean from the start of a round to the end of a round. Also seems funny that AoO are not measured in combat rounds but are in the combat basic part of the PHB and only used during combat). Any enemy preforming an act in that square that provokes a AoO from you. Assume. I disagree. When they say "you threaten all 5' squares around you even when it is not your turn" I interpret "not your turn" as "any moment in which it is not your turn to act". That has nothing to do with the beginning or end of a round. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Marcus Majarra 11-28-07, 04:09 PM	So spell casting is not good good example. How about rage, turn/rebuke undead, spell like abilities. Do you get them back every mourning or 24 hours after you use the first one. This is not explicitly stated in the rules. This is the very reason Orenmir's question is valid. start of a round to the end of a round Keep in mind that for almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. See PHB p138. the whole AoO system runs off of the begin to the end of a combat round. Except that this is not entirely true, or at least, not in the sense that you're presenting it. A combat round can be seen in many ways, but you almost never consider it in the way you present it, as stated on PHB p138.
BoringInfoGuy 11-28-07, 11:02 PM	Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy It gives you the ability to make extra attacks of opportunity per round based on your dex modifier, and it also gives you an extra time frame when you can make attacks of Opportunity. The former, we've got it on print. The latter, you're pulling out of a hat. Combat Reflexes lets you perform AoOs while flat-footed, which is a condition, as opposed to a time frame. Furthermore, this condition is not exclusively associated with a given time frame. No hat. The latter, that you can make Attacks of Opportunity while flat-footed is also on print. Each combat starts with a period of time from when the battle starts, and each character can move. In that period of time, a character with Combat Reflesex can potentially make a number of Attacks of Opportunity equal to his dex bonus + 1. That is not argued. Whether that allows extra Attacks of Opportunity by the end of the first round is dependent on when AoO's refresh. While the flat-footed condition can happen at other points in the combat round, it still always occurs at the start of each battle. The fact that you could find yourself flat-footed at other times does not change this fact. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy From the Surprise round initiative 18 to Round 1 initiative 18 was not 6 seconds. In the surprise round, you can only take a standard action, not a full action. Therefore, the surprise round is only about half the length of a normal round, or 3 seconds. It makes sense, surprise only lasts a moment, so you get only a small amount of time to take advantage of it. No, RAW does not say so right out, but it fits that if you can only take half your normal actions, it's because you only have half the time to do it in. This is entirely fictitious. A surprise round is not three seconds long. Like any round, it is six seconds long. You're merely extrapolating this idea based on the false assumption that actions can be measured in time increments. Yes, I am extrapolating in that very fashion. But can you prove that my assumption if false? The very fact that many actions exist that involve making the same kind of attacks is proof that you cannot measure actions with time. For example, based on your idea, a standard attack requires 3 seconds. On the other hand, you have AoOs which are resolved exactly like standard attacks, but in order for these to exist, they would need to require no time at all, since your standard attack eats up 3 seconds and your move action eats up your other 3 seconds of the round. This is why the system seems incoherent to you. You've got the wrong idea on actions and time to begin with. Actions and time are not measured on the same scale. I'm actually glad you've brought up this example. It shows some limitations in your understanding of actions. Standard actions and Attacks of Opportunity are resolved in the same fashion, but they don't require the same amount of time or effort. Take a peek at your PHB on page 139. Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you manage to connect solidly. One roll on the D20 represents multiple attacks in the attempt to get past your opponents defensives. Now switch over to Combat Basics on page 135 An attack of Opportunity is a free melee attack that does not use up any of your actions. and Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack. One roll on the D20 represents a single attack made when your opponent has a lapse in defense. If you understand how Melee attacks and AoO's work, you see that they represent different expenditures of time. (Incidentally, I wouldn't really say that a standard action takes 3 seconds and a Move / move equivalent action also takes 3 seconds. Since you can use your Standard action to take a second Move / Move equivalent action, while the reverse is not true, the Standard action takes slightly more effort and time to do. Figuring out the exact time however, would have increased the complexity another level.) My point was to point out the extra effort to really keep track of time passed. This pretty much invalidates your entire explanation after that point. Not from what you've written. There was something better you could have tried to point out, but you missed it. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy To me, a cool down system strikes me as blatantly inconsistent with the rest of the rules. When a wizard sits down to prepare his spells, any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit. That's all. No mention of having to wait 8 hours or 24 hours. Simply that if a spell was cast within the last 8 hours, it is already considered used for the day. If a wizard casts one spell 7 hours before preparing his spells for the day, and another one just before he starts preparing spells, then both spells are considered used until the same time the next day when the wizard prepares spells again. On the other hand, divine spellcasters prepare their spells at a fixed time every day, meaning there is exactly 24 hours (of cooldown) between the start of preparation periods. It's easy to say that the system I'm proposing isn't consistent with the rest of the rules when you choose to pick a single system (which itself isn't consistent with similar ones) and generalize from there. If I choose to look to divine spell preparation as a basis for comparison, my system is very consistent. Ah, the retreat to Divine spellcasting. Sorry, but it doesn't really fit your 24 hour cool down model like you think. Let us look at the time divine spellcasters prepare their spells. PHB, pg 179. Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. Dawn, dusk, noon, and midnight are common choices. Some deities set the time or impose other special conditions for granting spells to their clerics. If some even prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells. First, it is a part of the day, not exact time. Dawn and dusk, for example, happen at a different time each day. (Noon and Midnight can be measured as 12:00 pm and 12:00 am, but if you look at older definitions, they can also mean the middle time of the day and night, which would also vary). If it was really a 24 hour cooldown, and the cleric prayed one day at dawn, then the next day he would have to pray slightly before dawn (or after depending on the time of year) the next day, and slightly before that the following day and so on. Instead, a divine caster gets his spells at a set point, not necessarily a set time. Second, if something prevents a character from preparing spells at his normal time, then he may end up preparing spells hours later in the day than he would normally. If it was a 24 hour cool-down, then the divine spellcaster would need to wait until 24 hours has passed before he could prepare spells again the following day. Instead, the cleric always prepares his spells at the same part of the day, with the only limitation being the recent casting limit. So much like with AoO's you can find that a divine spellcaster can prepare spells in less than a 24 hour period, while still only being able to prepare spells once per day. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy You do not need to keep track of what exact hour the spell was cast in to make certain that a set numbers of hours pass before being able to cast it again. We find that this rule is consistent with all spell casters, be they spontaneous casters or preparation casters, arcane or divine. This much is true, however. This correlates poorly to AoOs, nonetheless, but established a better parallel with immediate actions. Just like using an immediate action between your turns consumes your swift action for your next turn, so to does casting a spell in the 8 hours preceding preparation consumes that spell slot for the next daily preparation. Actually, I'm pointing out that the parallel exists when an action can be taken again. None of the rules use an X-time cooldown system. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy This really is a take home point. The wait time from an Immediate action taken before your turn is tied to the initiative count of the character taking the Immediate action, not the initiative count where the Immediate action took place. This was never the point. I never argued the recovery mechanic for immediate/swift actions, since it is clearly written in the SRD. What I was arguing was on how to measure time relative to an event that occurs outside your turn, to which immediate actions do correlate. AoOs have no built-in recovery mechanic text, unlike immediate/swift actions. It's never indicated that your roundly AoOs have to be taken within the window of one round between each of your turns. All we know is that these are available to you once per round. The only way to measure time/rounds relative to AoOs is to measure it from the moment the AoO takes place, since the AoO doesn't exist until that moment. No, the only way to measure time/rounds relative to AoO's is not to measure it from the moment the AoO takes place. It is the way that you argue they SHOULD be measured, but you have yet to give compelling proof. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy An AoO has no such wait period in it's description. Yes it does. The fact that you can make one per round indicates a wait period. Swift actions can be made once per turn, which means that once you make one, you need to wait until your next turn to make one again. Relative to this swift action, your next turn occurs the next time initiative reaches your count. Similarly, AoOs can be made once per round, which means that once you make one, you need to wait until the next round to make one again. Relative to this AoO, the next round occurs the next time initiative reaches the count on which the AoO was made. Sorry, poorly worded. An Attack of Opportunity does not have a specific cool down time listed. It does not say "After 6 seconds have passed" AoO's correlate to Immediate actions, not Swift. Both Swift and Immediate actions tie back to the initiative count of the character using the action, not to when the action actually takes place. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy You can - and probably would - point out that AoO's say once per round, while Swift actions are described as once per turn, and claim that is the difference that makes it so you need to use a 6-second cool down system. Indeed it is the very reason. Note that I understand your line of reasoning well enough to predict your counter, but still disagree with you. Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy The D&D system does not use a x second, x minute, x hour, x day cool down. Yes it does. Look at divine spell preparation. It has a 24-hour cooldown. Look at turns. They have a 1-round cooldown. Look at effect durations. They are essentially a cooldown until the effect ends. No, it does not. I did look at divine spell preparation. It does not have the 24-hour cool down, as I've demonstrated. Let's look at turns. First, you'll note that it doesn't matter if you take a standard action followed by a move/move equivalent action or vice versa. Once again, we find that at the initiative count, you can take any actions available to you, without having to pay attention to what was done before. Second, let us look at the PHB, page 137: Inaction: Even if you can't take actions (for instance if you become paralyzed or unconscious), you retain initiative score for the duration of the encounter. For example, when paralyzed by a ghoul, you may miss one or more actions, but once the cleric casts remove paralysis on you, you may act again on your next turn. If turns did act as a cool down, this example would have worked differently. If the cool down time had passed while the character was paralyzed, then he would have been able to act as soon as the cleric cast removed paralysis. Instead, regardless of how long the character was paralyzed for, he gets his next action the moment his initiative count comes up again. Also, what also matters is when his initiative comes up again, not how long it's been since the cleric cast remove paralysis. From this example, we see that turns actually don't work by a cool down. Let's look at durations. A duration is not cooldown until the effect expires. At this point, you've gone off the deep end. From the World of Warcraft Manual, pg 192. Cooldown: The waiting time before an ability, skill, or spell can be used again. (The fact that I can't even find the term cooldown in the PHB to begin with should be a clear indication that DnD does not use the cooldown mechanic.) From the PHB, pg 177. Duration: A spell's duration entry tells you how long the magical energy of a spell lasts. Cooldown, how long until you can do something again. Duration, how long an effect lasts. The two things are not related. Which finally shows how you got confused with the monk's stunning fist example. Yes, a Monk can use an Attack of Opportunity to make a stunning fist attack. The duration would be one round, counted from the initiative count when the Attack of Opportunity takes place. But you've mixed duration with cooldown. Assuming that the Monk has more Stunning fists allowed that day, the next time the monk may choose to use his stunning fist is when his initiative count comes up again. (Assuming he does not have Combat Reflexes.) If both Stunnings Fists succeed, then there could be two creatures stunned at once. What do we find with this? An action with a 1 round duration, taken as an Attack of Opportunity, can be used again before the duration expires. Consistently, we find that the DnD rules do not use a cool down period. The DnD rules use a set point where you regain the ability to take actions. Be it the preparation time for spells, or the initiative count to determine when you can take actions in combat. Incidentally, I've been enjoying debating the point immensely.
Ace_of_time 11-29-07, 12:05 AM	This is not explicitly stated in the rules. This is the very reason Orenmir's question is valid. Keep in mind that for almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. See PHB p138. Except that this is not entirely true, or at least, not in the sense that you're presenting it. A combat round can be seen in many ways, but you almost never consider it in the way you present it, as stated on PHB p138. I sorry. I didn't feel the need to repost something I had already posted. To me the begin of a round, to the DM not the players, is the person with the highest init rating. and the end of combat rounds being the on with the lowest rating. Most just players who time a round follow the 2nd example on that page and is used by DM's for spell and those abilities that go off of when they are cast/ used. We go with dawn on spell like abilities and the like. Just because that seems to be the new thing WotC is doing. Most magic items now run off of chrages per day and all of them come back at dawn. No matter when they were used. As you can see rounds run from highest to lowest init counts. Once the lowest has gone the next round begins and you go from highest to lowest again. So that we are clear here. AoO start at the first round of combat or as stated above the person with the highest init count. Once that point comes around again all the AoO start over for the new round of combat. We are not talking about spell here which start there time of rounds on your turn because that is when you casted them. AoO starts at the begining of the first round of combat and renew at that point every round there after. A round is the time it takes everyone to take their turn in combat before it is the first person's turn again. Don't forget that each round is still only 6 seconds long no matter how many people act in it. Each person takes their 6 seconds of combat in init order but all are really acting at the same time in real speed. And in the SRD. ACTIONS IN COMBAT THE COMBAT ROUND Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.This part you are talking is refering to the two types of action that are timed different. Some actions are timed on the PC or monsters turn. Some start at the begining of the combat rounds and these are rare. It is saying that most action are timed by turns but there are a few that are timed by combat rounds. Your not supposed to just pick one of the twp ways. Your supposed to use which ever way is neede at the time. AoO start at the start of combat and last until end of the encounter and start over at the start of every combat round.
BoringInfoGuy 11-29-07, 12:25 AM	Ace of Time, no rudeness intended, but is English a second language for you?
Marcus Majarra 11-29-07, 12:28 AM	While the flat-footed condition can happen at other points in the combat round, it still always occurs at the start of each battle. The fact that you could find yourself flat-footed at other times does not change this fact. No, it doesn't. But it does show that the potential to make AoOs first is when your first turn comes up is circumstantial. In this respect, AoOs are connected to the first turn by circumstance, as opposed to causality. Yes, I am extrapolating in that very fashion. But can you prove that my assumption if false? Yes. Slowed characters can take only a single standard or move action on their turn, each round. Similarly, chokers have the Quickness ability, which allows them to take an extra standard or move action on their turn, each round. In both of these cases, we have less or more actions than normal allowed within the same turn. Since rounds don't get any shorter or longer, it can mean one of two things: 1) Actions aren't measured in time (the consistent option) 2) The amount of time a certain action requires varies with each action and each character and each circumstance (this adds up to saying that you assume that the sum of your actions' time spans is 1 round; this solution offers no tangible help) I'm actually glad you've brought up this example. It shows some limitations in your understanding of actions. Standard actions and Attacks of Opportunity are resolved in the same fashion, but they don't require the same amount of time or effort. To be honest, it shows that you have a limited understanding of actions. Actions aren't measured in time; they're measured only in effort. Whenever actions are compared, it's always in terms of effort, which makes this quantifiable value the one you use to measure actions. Instead, a divine caster gets his spells at a set point, not necessarily a set time. It's curious how you conveniently avoid the noon and midnight options for divine spell preparation, which do result in 24-hour cooldowns. These are actually at a set time. Second, if something prevents a character from preparing spells at his normal time, then he may end up preparing spells hours later in the day than he would normally. If it was a 24 hour cool-down, then the divine spellcaster would need to wait until 24 hours has passed before he could prepare spells again the following day. Instead, the cleric always prepares his spells at the same part of the day, with the only limitation being the recent casting limit. This is an exception case that merely reflects the fact that divine spellcasters do not have the leisure to really do something constructive before being done with daily preparation. If the caster doesn't take the first opportunity to continue spell preparation, he cannot prepare spells that day. Granted, the cooldown gets adjusted in these exception cases, but that's what makes them an exception to the rule. No, the only way to measure time/rounds relative to AoO's is not to measure it from the moment the AoO takes place. It is the way that you argue they SHOULD be measured, but you have yet to give compelling proof. But it is the only way time can be measured relative to AoOs. The fact that you're measuring relatively means that you have to use that event as a starting point for your measurement. Whenever you want to measure the time elapsed for a spell's duration, you measure it from the moment the spell is cast. When you want to measure time relative to your turn, you start measuring on your initiative. This is not about compelling proof. This is simple logic. If you need to measure something relative to anything, you start measuring from whatever you're measuring relatively to. AoO's correlate to Immediate actions, not Swift. Both Swift and Immediate actions tie back to the initiative count of the character using the action, not to when the action actually takes place. Your correlation here is false. Swift and immediate actions tie back to the initiative count of the character using the action because their recovery is explicitly tied to the acting character's turn. AoOs are not explicitly tied to the acting character's turn (this is nowhere in the RAW). If turns did act as a cool down, this example would have worked differently. If the cool down time had passed while the character was paralyzed, then he would have been able to act as soon as the cleric cast removed paralysis. Instead, regardless of how long the character was paralyzed for, he gets his next action the moment his initiative count comes up again. Also, what also matters is when his initiative comes up again, not how long it's been since the cleric cast remove paralysis. From this example, we see that turns actually don't work by a cool down. This entire explanation makes no sense. When you're paralyzed, your turn comes up as normal, round after round. Whether you can act or not has no relevance to the fact that turns have 1-round cooldowns. No matter what's happening to you, your turn will come up every round at the same time (unless you start readying/delaying, but neither of these reduce the cooldown to less than 1 round). Let's look at durations. A duration is not cooldown until the effect expires. At this point, you've gone off the deep end. From the World of Warcraft Manual, pg 192. Okay, you're fetching WoW definitions and using them as proof for D&D? And you say that I've gone off the deep end? Please, if you're going to use definitions, use dictionary definitions: Cooldown: A period following strenuous physical activity in which stretching or milder exercise is performed to allow the body gradually to return to normal. While I'll agree that, by definition, it doesn't apply well to spell durations, the idea remains applicable. The "strenuous physical activity" equates to the casting of the spell, "milder exercise" equates to the spell effect, and "return to normal" equates to the end of the spell. Of course, what really interests us here is the notion of period. In any case, I would prefer we now switch to a more appropriate word to describe the recurrence of AoOs (or any event), such as periodic. The DnD rules use a set point where you regain the ability to take actions. This is not consistently the case within the rules (as we would not be having this debate otherwise). In some cases, the rules do mention a set point in time, but in most cases, they do not. The truth is: many actions in D&D can be taken periodically, but there is no mention as to when these actions are available to you after use. If you have a spell-like ability usable once per day, when do you get to use it again? Is it at midnight? At dawn? After resting (despite the fact that you need not rest to use SLAs)? This is the unfortunate truth. However, in order for any periodic action to remain consistent with its period, no matter how you choose to look at the period in question, you need to allow for the period's interval to be elapsed between the uses of these actions, as you can otherwise wind up with more occurrences of the actions in question than the period would allow, within the said interval.
mvincent 11-29-07, 06:08 PM	Wow. I'm surprised this thread is still going... I had unsubscribed awhile ago, as I am absolutely positive that that I already know the correct answer. I mean, the issue itself is pretty negligible, and it shouldn't matter how other people (that you'll likely never meet, much less play with) interpret it. Still, the matter shows the difference between those that view rounds as 'circular' and those that view them as a series of lines. This seems to be a carry-over from 3.0 (and earlier editions), which had things like 'refocusing' and some groups kept careful track of when new rounds began, viewing the shift between rounds as a 'hard' breakpoint. This was a fairly non-smooth way of handling rounds, and 3.5 has tried to do away with such thinking. However, some players (that have likely learned on the linear method) evidently still find the linear method easier for AoO's. The problem is that (unlike 3.0) D&D 3.5 actually uses the circular method for almost everything, and these linear players seem to be unknowingly resisting that. This can result in a disparity of expectations and methodology that goes beyond just AoO's when they try to play with others. I would certainly have a hard time playing them.
Ace_of_time 11-29-07, 07:34 PM	Ace of Time, no rudeness intended, but is English a second language for you?No I have that thing where you switch your letters around. When I'm typing my fingers just want to hit the letters beside the ones I'm trying to type. Sorry about that.
Ace_of_time 11-29-07, 07:44 PM	It does say, "For almost all purposes" that means that there are some action left that still run on the begin of combat rounds. Would you use something just because it was used on most other things or would you use what is best for what you needed it for.
mvincent 11-29-07, 07:48 PM	It does say, "For almost all purposes" that means that there are some action left that still run on the begin of combat rounds. Such things are specifically labeled (and rare).
Toki_Wartooth 11-29-07, 07:51 PM	I have that thing where you switch your letters around.Er... Dyslexia?
Tichrimo 11-29-07, 08:07 PM	Wow. I'm surprised this thread is still going... I had unsubscribed awhile ago, as I am absolutely positive that that I already know the correct answer. I mean, the issue itself is pretty negligible, and it shouldn't matter how other people (that you'll likely never meet, much less play with) interpret it. You and me both -- and I started the whole mess off! :) This seems to be a carry-over from 3.0 (and earlier editions), which had things like 'refocusing' and some groups kept careful track of when new rounds began, viewing the shift between rounds as a 'hard' breakpoint. Yep, I cut my teeth on 1e, so that may be exactly where the confusion/resistance started.
BoringInfoGuy 11-29-07, 09:24 PM	No I have that thing where you switch your letters around. When I'm typing my fingers just want to hit the letters beside the ones I'm trying to type. Sorry about that. Ok, I see now. Don't worry about it. If you have to take a bit of extra effort to type, I can take some extra effort reading your post.
Marcus Majarra 11-30-07, 08:50 AM	Still, the matter shows the difference between those that view rounds as 'circular' and those that view them as a series of lines. The matter on the renewal of periodic abilities/events is one of the other main points brought up by this discussion. In many instances, the rules remain silent on when the renewal takes place. It's also worthy of notice that the rules aren't streamlined in this respect, which makes establishing a precedent difficult, if not outright impossible.
mvincent 11-30-07, 11:46 AM	the rules aren't streamlined in this respect, which makes establishing a precedent difficultThey are indeed streamlined in this respect (i.e. much more than in 3.0), and the paradigm shift (and thus precedence) is fairly evident in the rules. I recommend asking the Sage. Let me ask you: are you willing to wager your geek-cred on this issue? I am.
Marcus Majarra 11-30-07, 12:03 PM	They are indeed streamlined in this respect (i.e. much more than in 3.0), and the paradigm shift (and thus precedence) is fairly evident in the rules. I recommend asking the Sage. Let me ask you: are you willing to wager your geek-cred on this issue? I am. I am as well. I fail to see how any kind of streamlining exists with regaining access to certain abilities, since we're basically dealing with scenarios in which it is explicitly stated and for which we deal on a case-by-case approach, and scenarios where this is stated nowhere. For example, clerics get to prepare their spells at a fixed point during the day and this point in time never changes, in definition (dawn is still dawn and dusk is still dusk, no matter when the sun rises or sets), since this point in time is present only once per day. There is no question as to when they regain their daily spells. For wizards, the answer is very ambiguous. They get daily spells, but they're not restricted to a particular moment for spell preparation. When do they regain the ability to prepare their daily spells? This is an example of where the lack of streamlining becomes evident. EDIT: Actually, I can't even guarantee that dawn and dusk occur once a day, since the frequency and time at which these events occur vary according to latitude and date in the real world. This is due to the Earth's rotation axis being inclined to about 23 degrees' off the sun's orbit's perpendicular.
mvincent 11-30-07, 12:23 PM	are you willing to wager your geek-cred on this issue? I am.I am as well. Done. If we can get a solid answer (from an official source) on when AoO's refresh, then the winner need not suffer the arguments of the loser again (and can point to this thread if challenged).
Marcus Majarra 11-30-07, 12:53 PM	Done. If we can get a solid answer (from an official source) on when AoO's refresh, then the winner need not suffer the arguments of the loser again (and can point to this thread if challenged). Fair enough. That's how it usually works. In fact, when an official source speaks, not even the loser need suffer the arguments of the winner (because the official answer is as good as RAW). It's a shame that the official source has yet to speak on an official channel, though.
mvincent 11-30-07, 02:19 PM	Fair enough. That's how it usually works.To clarify: wagering our geek-cred implies this would be applicable (just for us) outside of this thread, on any topic.
weasel0 11-30-07, 07:10 PM	It's a GEEK OFF!! http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061020/15711__zoolander_l.jpg
BoringInfoGuy 11-30-07, 08:21 PM	I would love to join the bet, but it might be moot. I went searching to see if it had already been asked. There wasn't anything in Sage advice, but I did find "All About Attacks of Opportunity" in Rules of the Game, dated back in 11/02/04. Making an Attack of Opportunity As noted last month, an attack of opportunity is a melee attack. Unless you have the Combat Reflexes feat (and a Dexterity score of at least 12), you can make only one attack of opportunity each turn. (Some monsters, such as hydras, have the ability to make multiple attacks of opportunity each turn.) You always can opt not to make an attack of opportunity, but if you do, the foe that provoked the attack of opportunity from you completes his action and that particular attack of opportunity is lost to you. (You can't change your mind after you know the result of the foe's action.) Still, you may have a good reason to forego the attack of opportunity. Perhaps later you'll get a chance to make an attack of opportunity against a more dangerous foe. Note the part that I underlined, and compare it to these arguments from earlier in the debate: Way back in page 2: Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy How many times have I pointed out that Attacks of Opportunity are not something the player controls? Naturally, I have the non cyclic nature of Attacks of Opportunity in mind. That is why they are something that you get the potential to take once per initiative, instead of being set to once per 6 seconds Originally Posted by Marcus Majarra Once per initiative has no meaning. Once per round means once every 6 seconds. That's how long a round lasts. The premise you're proposing, to be precise, is that you're allowed to one AoO between your current turn and the next. The closest thing to this kind of meaning is once per turn, not once per round. Once per round can validly mean that, within a 1-round window, an event can occur only once. The thing is: a 1-round window is not restricted to anyone's turn. And more recently: Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy You can - and probably would - point out that AoO's say once per round, while Swift actions are described as once per turn, and claim that is the difference that makes it so you need to use a 6-second cool down system. Originally Posted by Marcus Majarra Indeed it is the very reason. Once per round - once per turn, tomato - tahmahto. Is this official enough for this debate?
Ace_of_time 11-30-07, 11:11 PM	Er... Dyslexia? Yes that's the one. I know the word just every time I try to spell it it just never looks right. I always spell lion "loin" every time. And I work at Food Lion.
Marcus Majarra 11-30-07, 11:34 PM	To clarify: wagering our geek-cred implies this would be applicable (just for us) outside of this thread, on any topic. I'm still not sure as to what this means for the loser, though. I don't think I'll stop being usually right when responding to rules counseling questions on this forum if I'm wrong on this issue, just like you'll still be usually right doing the same very same thing. Two things are for sure: I'm willing to accept being wrong and I'm not going to stop giving rules counseling (and stick to my points when convinced), even if my "geek-cred" takes a beating to your regard. Is this official enough for this debate? Official? Yes, to my liking. I'm generally open to RotG articles as decent rules references. I still feel it lacks clarification. Turns and rounds are not synonymous. If you're limited to making AoOs on turns, this would mean you can't make them outside your turn, which is clearly not the case. The best way to integrate this, IMHO, would be for AoOs to be counted off your next turn, much like immediate actions count off your next turn's swift action. If we can find an official source to this effect (as I'm expecting mvincent to dig up), I'll gladly concede the point completely. Good job on digging this one up. I'm still curious as to how other periodic use abilities are managed. When are daily SLAs recovered, for example? When does the wizard gain the ability to prepare his daily allotment of spells, each day?
Ace_of_time 12-01-07, 12:05 AM	In most cases if he is talking about a PC turn they say PCs turn not just turn. Note that I just assumed that since all combatants are acting at the same time during combat, in real time, Then they would all get the AoOs back at the same time. Doing it the other way does seem like a bad thing just seems like more work then it has to be.
Ace_of_time 12-01-07, 12:35 AM	I'm still not sure as to what this means for the loser, though. I don't think I'll stop being usually right when responding to rules counseling questions on this forum if I'm wrong on this issue, just like you'll still be usually right doing the same very same thing. Two things are for sure: I'm willing to accept being wrong and I'm not going to stop giving rules counseling (and stick to my points when convinced), even if my "geek-cred" takes a beating to your regard. Official? Yes, to my liking. I'm generally open to RotG articles as decent rules references. I still feel it lacks clarification. Turns and rounds are not synonymous. If you're limited to making AoOs on turns, this would mean you can't make them outside your turn, which is clearly not the case. The best way to integrate this, IMHO, would be for AoOs to be counted off your next turn, much like immediate actions count off your next turn's swift action. If we can find an official source to this effect (as I'm expecting mvincent to dig up), I'll gladly concede the point completely. Good job on digging this one up. I'm still curious as to how other periodic use abilities are managed. When are daily SLAs recovered, for example? When does the wizard gain the ability to prepare his daily allotment of spells, each day? I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but I think it is. When you make an attack of opportunity, you use your full attack bonus (no matter how many other attacks of opportunity you've made during the round). Certain actions you've taken during your previous turn might impose a penalty on your attacks of opportunity, such as using the flurry of blows class feature. If the same foe later provokes another attack of opportunity from you, you can attack that foe again (provided that you're allowed more than one attack of opportunity that round), and you use your full attack bonus for that attack.
Marcus Majarra 12-01-07, 12:47 AM	I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but I think it is. You're completely off. The example you provided illustrates how certain actions can penalize AoOs. For example, a 1st-level monk performing a flurry of blows will take a -2 penalty on his attack rolls until his next turn, which includes any and all AoOs made before his next turn. What I meant was that clarification needs to be supplied as to where the AoOs are pooled from. I suggested pooling them off the next turn (just like using an immediate action pools off your next turn's swift action) in order for AoOs to remain usable, regardless of the state of battle. For example, if AoOs were pooled from your last turn, it would be impossible to make AoOs before your first turn, in combat, despite there being no direct link between the first turn and the chance to make AoOs. If you pool them off your next turn, it becomes more consistent (and correlates to an existent precedent).
BoringInfoGuy 12-01-07, 02:01 AM	I'm still not sure as to what this means for the loser, though. I don't think I'll stop being usually right when responding to rules counseling questions on this forum if I'm wrong on this issue, just like you'll still be usually right doing the same very same thing. Two things are for sure: I'm willing to accept being wrong and I'm not going to stop giving rules counseling (and stick to my points when convinced), even if my "geek-cred" takes a beating to your regard. For the loser, I think this means that whenever you find yourself in another topic debating with the winner of the bet, you forfeit. Official? Yes, to my liking. I'm generally open to RotG articles as decent rules references. I still feel it lacks clarification. Turns and rounds are not synonymous. If you're limited to making AoOs on turns, this would mean you can't make them outside your turn, which is clearly not the case. The best way to integrate this, IMHO, would be for AoOs to be counted off your next turn, much like immediate actions count off your next turn's swift action. If we can find an official source to this effect (as I'm expecting mvincent to dig up), I'll gladly concede the point completely. Good job on digging this one up. I'm still curious as to how other periodic use abilities are managed. When are daily SLAs recovered, for example? When does the wizard gain the ability to prepare his daily allotment of spells, each day? Thank you, I was pleased to hunt this down. However, read it again. The phrase used was EACH turn, not that you are limited to making Attacks of Opportunity ON your turn. The wording does not indicate AoO's can't be made outside your turn.
Marcus Majarra 12-01-07, 11:49 AM	The wording does not indicate AoO's can't be made outside your turn. The thing is, when it's stated that something can be done each turn, by definition, you're implying that it's done on your turn. "Each" has the same meaning as "per" in this context, which still leaves us with the question as to which turn's AoOs are you using, when making one? Immediate actions, which are as close as you get to out-of-turn per turn abilities, are explicit on this matter, and I would find it interesting if AoOs were just as explicit.
Sinis 12-01-07, 02:14 PM	Wait, wait. There can't be a consensus. We're still at less than two hundred posts of gibbering madness! So, the answer really is "refreshes at the beginning of that player's turn"?
BoringInfoGuy 12-01-07, 02:44 PM	The thing is, when it's stated that something can be done each turn, by definition, you're implying that it's done on your turn. "Each" has the same meaning as "per" in this context, which still leaves us with the question as to which turn's AoOs are you using, when making one? Immediate actions, which are as close as you get to out-of-turn per turn abilities, are explicit on this matter, and I would find it interesting if AoOs were just as explicit. Actually, I'd read that if something is defined as can be done each turn, then it's implying that it's not on your turn. Otherwise, it would say on your turn. Let us (again - sigh) look at some relevant facts about Attacks of Opportunity and Immediate Actions. Attacks of Opportunity are a free melee attack that does not use up any of your actions. - PHB pg 135. An immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). - SRD. No, I don't think that Attacks of Opportunity have the same delay (not the Delay Action) as an Immediate action. Think of it this way, if using an Attack of Opportunity while it's not your turn meant that you've effectively used your Attack of Opportunity for the coming turn, and therefore had to wait until AFTER your next turn to use another one, you'd only be able to make an Attack of Opportunity once every other turn. Do you really want to suggest that once per round really means once per every other round?
BoringInfoGuy 12-01-07, 03:21 PM	Originally Posted by Marcus Majarra I'm still curious as to how other periodic use abilities are managed. When are daily SLAs recovered, for example? When does the wizard gain the ability to prepare his daily allotment of spells, each day? Ask and you shall receive. When do Spell Like Abilities refresh? Rules of the Game, All About Spell Like Abilities (Part 4) 05/04/2004. As noted earlier, spell-like abilities with daily use limits become available to the creature automatically each day. The creature doesn't need to rest, study, or prepare for them in any way. In this case, a "day" is any contiguous period of 24 hours. There is no set "recharge" time for a spell-like ability. Instead, the creature can use the ability a set number of times in any given period of 24 hours. For example, a lillend can use its darkness spell-like ability three times a day. The lillend cannot create three darkness effects at 11 PM one day, then create three more two hours later (at 1 AM the next day). Instead, the lillend can use darkness up to three times during any period of 24 consecutive hours. If she creates darkness at 11 PM on a given day, she can use the ability only twice more during the following 24 hours. Let's say she uses the power again at 1 AM the next day and again at 7 AM that same day. She has exhausted her daily limit on her darkness ability at 7 AM. The earliest she can use the ability again is 11 PM on the second day, when she can use the power only once (because she already has used the power twice during the preceding 24 hours). If she doesn't use the power at all after 7 AM the second day, the earliest that she will have three uses available again will be 7 AM on the third day. There you go. Spell Like Abilities that are # per day use a 24 hour cool down. But do note that it says "In this case." Not every case. Wait, wait. There can't be a consensus. We're still at less than two hundred posts of gibbering madness! So, the answer really is "refreshes at the beginning of that player's turn"? Despite finding a cooldown mechanic in DnD, I still say that the Attacks of Opportunity refresh at the beginning of that players turn.
Marcus Majarra 12-01-07, 06:36 PM	Actually, I'd read that if something is defined as can be done each turn, then it's implying that it's not on your turn. Otherwise, it would say on your turn. To be honest, I see both statements as being synonymous. Your implications are based on what you want the text to mean, as opposed to what it actually means. A more correct separation would be: "for each/every turn, you can make one AoO." This implies that AoOs and turns are correlated, but not simultaneous. Think of it this way, if using an Attack of Opportunity while it's not your turn meant that you've effectively used your Attack of Opportunity for the coming turn, and therefore had to wait until AFTER your next turn to use another one, you'd only be able to make an Attack of Opportunity once every other turn. How do you reason this? Let's say that I've just reached my 2nd turn this combat. After my turn, but before the next one, I make an AoO. This means that the next time I can make an AoO is after my 3rd turn. The end result is that I end up making an AoO between my 2nd and 3rd turns, and that the next one becomes available only after the third turn. I don't see where you get the once every other round idea. Look at it another way: your AoOs refresh at the end of your turn. This makes it possible for a character to make AoOs before his first turn, because he didn't expend any AoOs at that time. The only thing preventing him from taking AoOs is being flat-footed, which coincides with the RAW. In this fashion, characters with Combat Reflexes are able to make AoOs at the start of combat, as normal. In essence, you've got a number of AoOs you can make each round, and this number resets at the end of your turn. Despite finding a cooldown mechanic in DnD, I still say that the Attacks of Opportunity refresh at the beginning of that players turn. And I still say otherwise. I'm glad you found a precedent for my claims.
BoringInfoGuy 12-02-07, 01:12 AM	To be honest, I see both statements as being synonymous. Your implications are based on what you want the text to mean, as opposed to what it actually means. A more correct separation would be: "for each/every turn, you can make one AoO." This implies that AoOs and turns are correlated, but not simultaneous. If there is one thing that my last post should have made crystal clear, I look for what the rules are, not how I want them to be. How do you reason this? Let's say that I've just reached my 2nd turn this combat. After my turn, but before the next one, I make an AoO. This means that the next time I can make an AoO is after my 3rd turn. The end result is that I end up making an AoO between my 2nd and 3rd turns, and that the next one becomes available only after the third turn. I don't see where you get the once every other round idea. Use this example: Round 1 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 (1st Turn) Wizard may now use a Swift or Immediate action. (But does not) Round 2 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 The Gnoll pulls a lever that opens a pit beneath the wizard. Wizard casts Feather Fall as an Immediate Action. Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 (2nd turn) The Wizard can't use an Immediate or Swift Action this turn, because the Feather Fall counted as his swift action for this turn. Round 3 Cleric - 20 Gnoll - 18 Rogue - 17 Goblin -15 Fighter - 14 Orc - 13 Kobold - 10 Wizard - 5 (3rd turn) The wizard can use a Swift or Immediate Action again. This is how I reasoned this. But. . . I think I was in error. I read After your turn to mean just before the next time your turn comes up again. But after looking at my example, it looks better for the Wizard to be able to use another Immediate action after his initiative ends, - after the Clerics next turn starts. Which would let the wizard keep using Immediate actions round after round before his turn(until he uses all his Immediate spells and/or items), at the cost of not getting to make Swift or Immediate actions during his turn. Look at it another way: your AoOs refresh at the end of your turn. This makes it possible for a character to make AoOs before his first turn, because he didn't expend any AoOs at that time. The only thing preventing him from taking AoOs is being flat-footed, which coincides with the RAW. In this fashion, characters with Combat Reflexes are able to make AoOs at the start of combat, as normal. In essence, you've got a number of AoOs you can make each round, and this number resets at the end of your turn. Or you can say that your AoO's refresh at the beginning of your turn. I know you've said that the only reason you can't take an AoO before your turn is because you are flat-footed. What you haven't considered is why are you flat-footed at the start of battle? PHB, page 137: Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. (This fact can be very bad for you if yo're attacked by rogues.) Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can't make Attacks of Opportunity. I haven't forgotten that there are other conditions that can make you flat-footed. But to the game designers, this is the important one. The other conditions, such as climbing or on a narrow bridge is not mentioned here, or in the glossary. They are barely mentioned at all. Most of the time, players aren't going to start combat in a situation that would limit their movement to the point where they become flat-footed. (Unless your campaign world is filled with nothing but mountains connected by narrow bridges). But everyone is flat-footed at the start of each battle before their first turn comes up. Why? What is the difference between before your first initiative and when your first initiative comes up that would make you flat-footed before but not after that point? The only difference between those points is that when your first turn comes up, you gain the ability to take actions. That includes the ability to take an Attack of Opportunity. Before your turn, you can't take advantage of a provoked AoO. As soon as your initiative comes up, you can. You can claim that you can't make an AoO before that point because you are flat-footed, but you are only flat-footed because you haven't gained the ability to take actions yet. You get your ability to take an AoO at the start of your turn. Most of the time, it wouldn't make a difference if you get it at the start or the end of your turn. Both would be the same initiative count. But lets say that the Fighter gets his first turn. He takes a move action, and provokes an AoO from the Gnoll. The Gnoll, for his AoO, tries to trip the fighter. But the Gnoll does not have Improved Trip, so the Gnoll also provokes an AoO from the fighter. The fighter gets his first AoO. The gnoll rolled badly, and missed his AoO. The fighter then takes his standard action. If the Fighters AoO's refresh at the start of his turn, then that was his one AoO for the round . But if the AoO's refresh at the end of his turn [when the next Initiative count (13) starts], he is free to take another AoO against the orc, the kobold, the Gnoll or the Goblin, should any of them provoke an AoO from the fighter. [I]That is two AoO's from initiative 14 to the next round's initiative 14. That is not consistent with RAW. And I still say otherwise. I'm glad you found a precedent for my claims. As I said before, my goal is for everyone to understand the RAW as well as possible, myself included.
Marcus Majarra 12-02-07, 02:01 AM	But everyone is flat-footed at the start of each battle before their first turn comes up. Why? What is the difference between before your first initiative and when your first initiative comes up that would make you flat-footed before but not after that point? The only difference between those points is that when your first turn comes up, you gain the ability to take actions. That includes the ability to take an Attack of Opportunity. C_um hoc ergo propter hoc. You're trying to argue causality where there is barely correlation. Your first turn has nothing with your ability to act. You have the ability to take actions, even before your first turn. Whether or not you have the opportunity to do so is another matter altogether. The only difference between before your first initiative until your first initiative comes up is basically being flat-footed, and not being unable to act. If the Fighters AoO's refresh at the start of his turn, then that was his one AoO for the round [initiative 14 to next round initiative 14]. But if the AoO's refresh at the end of his turn [when the next Initiative count (13) starts], he is free to take another AoO against the orc, the kobold, the Gnoll or the Goblin, should any of them provoke an AoO from the fighter. That is two AoO's from initiative 14 to the next round's initiative 14. There is fallacious thinking here as well. A round doesn't last from initiative 14 until the next initiative 14. That is slightly more than one round. For example, a round that starts at the beginning of initiative 14 lasts up to just before initiative 14 comes up again. Similarly, a round that starts as initiative 14 ends last until the end of the next time initiative 14 comes up. Either way, the end result is the same: you're not getting more than 1 AoO between turns.
BoringInfoGuy 12-02-07, 02:55 AM	C_um hoc ergo propter hoc. You're trying to argue causality where there is barely correlation. Your first turn has nothing with your ability to act. You have the ability to take actions, even before your first turn. Whether or not you have the opportunity to do so is another matter altogether. The only difference between before your first initiative until your first initiative comes up is basically being flat-footed, and not being unable to act. Then I ask you, WHY are you flat-footed at the start of each battle? You keep mentioning what you are at the start of battle, but ignoring the why. There is fallacious thinking here as well. A round doesn't last from initiative 14 until the next initiative 14. That is slightly more than one round. For example, a round that starts at the beginning of initiative 14 lasts up to just before initiative 14 comes up again. Similarly, a round that starts as initiative 14 ends last until the end of the next time initiative 14 comes up. Either way, the end result is the same: you're not getting more than 1 AoO between turns. Not at all. My example gave the fighter 2 attacks of Opportunity after his first turn started but before his first turn ended. In one turn, the fighter got 2 attacks of opportunity.
Marcus Majarra 12-02-07, 03:49 AM	Then I ask you, WHY are you flat-footed at the start of each battle? You keep mentioning what you are at the start of battle, but ignoring the why. The only actual reason for this is because it's written that until your first turn, you're flat-footed. There is no reason beyond this. Anything else is speculation without any RAW basis. Nothing actually explains why this happens. In any case, you're still trying to assign causality where there is only correlation. Just because you normally become able to perform AoOs as of your first turn doesn't mean that you become able to perform AoOs because your first turn is up. You become able to make AoOs because you're no longer flat-footed (or, if not the case, because you have Combat Reflexes). The first turn has nothing to do with this, which explains the circumstantial relation between the first turn and AoOs. Not at all. My example gave the fighter 2 attacks of Opportunity after his first turn started but before his first turn ended. In one turn, the fighter got 2 attacks of opportunity. Your entire explanation makes no sense. A turn is merely the instant during which a combat participant gets to act, during a round. The turn ends the moment the character finishes making his actions. The correct explanation takes a round into consideration. The end of turn doesn't mean right before the start of your next turn. The end of turn means when you're finished making your actions for that round. In any case, I concur that my alternative explanation was poor. I still insist that, if we're going on the turn approach, you need to make AoOs based on the ones you'll be entitled to in the next turn, just like making an immediate action is based on your next turn's swift action. This is good because it makes it so that you can make AoOs before your first turn. This needs to be present to accommodate for Combat Reflexes or creatures immune to the flat-footed condition, as they would otherwise be unable to perform AoOs before their first turn.
BoringInfoGuy 12-02-07, 07:08 PM	The only actual reason for this is because it's written that until your first turn, you're flat-footed. There is no reason beyond this. Anything else is speculation without any RAW basis. Nothing actually explains why this happens. But the game designers had a reason for writing this into the rules. One thing that you have to keep in mind while considering RAW is that it did not just magically appear in print on the store shelves. This runs into a problem I have with the school system. It teaches you to memorize facts, but not to think. Did you think about what you wrote? In effect you are saying the only actual reason that they wrote the rule that until your first turn, you're flat-footed is because it's written that until your first turn, you're flat-footed. In any case, you're still trying to assign causality where there is only correlation. Just because you normally become able to perform AoOs as of your first turn doesn't mean that you become able to perform AoOs because your first turn is up. You become able to make AoOs because you're no longer flat-footed (or, if not the case, because you have Combat Reflexes). The first turn has nothing to do with this, which explains the circumstantial relation between the first turn and AoOs. Yet you are no longer flat-footed BECAUSE your first turn came up. Your entire explanation makes no sense. A turn is merely the instant during which a combat participant gets to act, during a round. The turn ends the moment the character finishes making his actions. The correct explanation takes a round into consideration. The end of turn doesn't mean right before the start of your next turn. The end of turn means when you're finished making your actions for that round. While the Rules of the Game says one each turn, the RAW is only one per round. For the two to both be accurate, the round described in RAW is the round from that character's initiative to the same initiative the following round. In that round, your new method allows a character to get two AoO's in the first characters round. In any case, I concur that my alternative explanation was poor. I still insist that, if we're going on the turn approach, you need to make AoOs based on the ones you'll be entitled to in the next turn, just like making an immediate action is based on your next turn's swift action. This is good because it makes it so that you can make AoOs before your first turn. This needs to be present to accommodate for Combat Reflexes or creatures immune to the flat-footed condition, as they would otherwise be unable to perform AoOs before their first turn. If you were trying to make AoO's refresh at the same time as Immediate Actions, then they would refresh at the start of your turn, not the end. Swift actions (Like any other action) can be taken at the start of your turn. Using an Immediate action when it's not your turn does not change when Swift actions refresh. What creature is immune to the flat-footed condition? You do not need to accommodate for Combat Reflexes in the standard rules. Every Feat creates exemptions to the rules. Look at it this way. Consider RAW without feats or class abilities. (Call that the Standard RAW.) Now look at each feat. Every single feat, in some way, breaks a rule (or rules) in the Standard RAW. A feat gives a bonus, removes a penalty, or gives a new ability unavailable without the Feat. Feats break normal rules, it's what they do. Or do you feel a need to accommodate for the extra attack Improved Trip grants in the Standard RAW as well?
Marcus Majarra 12-02-07, 09:54 PM	But the game designers had a reason for writing this into the rules. One thing that you have to keep in mind while considering RAW is that it did not just magically appear in print on the store shelves. This runs into a problem I have with the school system. It teaches you to memorize facts, but not to think. Did you think about what you wrote? In effect you are saying the only actual reason that they wrote the rule that until your first turn, you're flat-footed is because it's written that until your first turn, you're flat-footed. Well, if you really want to get into reasons behind this, the last thing you need to do is to speculate based on what you think it is, and look at the written facts. What's written is that being flat-footed equates, generally, to being more vulnerable at the start of combat. This is made evident by the fact that you're denied your Dex bonus to AC while flat-footed. There's no written reason as to why you're denied AoOs while flat-footed, but given that initiative reflects quickness of reaction, it seems to me that this inhibition of being flat-footed results in an inability to react. This is consistent with the fact that AoOs are reactive attacks. Being unable to act is completely different. It's an active force preventing you from taking actions, as opposed to a passive lack of opportunity. For example, being paralyzed prevents you from taking non-mental actions. Being stunned prevents you from acting altogether. Not being on your turn doesn't prevent you from acting; it's merely a lack of opportunity to do so. If you're arguing that you can't take AoOs before your first turn because you can't act before your first turn, then I can argue that you cannot make AoOs between each of your turns because you cannot make actions between your turns. Yet you are no longer flat-footed BECAUSE your first turn came up. That's correct. You still need to get your causality relationships straight. Consider the following: A: The time before your first turn B: The flat-footed condition C: Being unable to make AoOs As we know, A can cause B, and B can cause C. Does this mean that A automatically causes C? No. For this to be a true causality relationship, you would need for all A to cause B, and for all B to cause C. Since this is not the case, A is related to C only by correlation; not causality. As such, A doesn't implicitly cause C. While the Rules of the Game says one each turn, the RAW is only one per round. For the two to both be accurate, the round described in RAW is the round from that character's initiative to the same initiative the following round. In that round, your new method allows a character to get two AoO's in the first characters round. Actually, for the RotG to be accurate, it would have to use more clarification as to what it means when stating once each turn. A turn is not a round. A turn is merely an instant during which a character's actions for a given round are resolved. If something is associated to a turn, then it's associated to that instant. The "new" method does not allow the character to get two AoOs in his first round. What creature is immune to the flat-footed condition? To bring up a core example, any creature under the effects of the foresight spell. These creatures are never flat-footed. You do not need to accommodate for Combat Reflexes in the standard rules. Every Feat creates exemptions to the rules. That's correct, but you need to be exact in which rules you are excepting to. Combat Reflexes excepts to flat-footed rules as well as on roundly AoOs rules. This is not related in any direct way to the first turn of combat, as shown above.
Ace_of_time 12-03-07, 12:10 AM	As stated before if he was talking about someone turn he would say someone's turn. A turn is from one init count tothe same init count the next round. If you look at what I post again you'll see it. When you make an attack of opportunity, you use your full attack bonus (no matter how many other attacks of opportunity you've made during the round). Certain actions you've taken during your previous turn might impose a penalty on your attacks of opportunity, such as using the flurry of blows class feature. If the same foe later provokes another attack of opportunity from you, you can attack that foe again (provided that you're allowed more than one attack of opportunity that round), and you use your full attack bonus for that attack. My point was that if they started over on your turn it wouldn't matter if you had more AoO for that round because they would have started over on your turn. But he didn't say that he said "provided that you're allowed more than one attack of opportunity that round".
Marcus Majarra 12-03-07, 08:20 AM	A turn is from one init count tothe same init count the next round. This is incorrect. A turn lasts only an instant. What you're describing is a round starting on someone's turn.
Ace_of_time 12-03-07, 04:59 PM	Not when it is refered to as each turn.
Marcus Majarra 12-03-07, 06:59 PM	Care to prove this? Each turn basically means that it occurs on every turn, not that turns last one round. This is why the RotG article is incomplete.
BoringInfoGuy 12-04-07, 06:36 PM	Care to prove this? Each turn basically means that it occurs on every turn, not that turns last one round. This is why the RotG article is incomplete. THE COMBAT ROUND Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round. Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character's turn come up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.) The actions that a character declares on his turn last an entire round. As for the statement "Each turn" meaning "On your turn," and the RotG article being incomplete: From the All About Attacks of Opportunity Rules of the Game: A Few More Basics Only a few more rules round out the basics for attacks of opportunity: * An attack of opportunity is a melee attack. You can't use a ranged weapon, a spell, a special ability, or a magic item in an attack of opportunity (though there are a few exceptions, which we'll consider next time). * An attack of opportunity is something a creature does during another creature's turn. As such, the attack of opportunity interrupts the normal flow of action during the turn. Also, because it isn't the attacking creature's turn, there are strict limits on what it can do. That seems pretty clear right there. Here is what I see going on right now. I found something that ruined your 6 second cooldown theory for AoO's, and matched what I (and many others) have been saying all along. You can't keep arguing for your original theory, but after 7 pages of trying to prove us wrong, you just can't admit that we were right. So now, you are desperate for any interpretation that will let you say "Maybe I was wrong before, but so were you. Now I have the correct way, which still is not your way."
Sinis 12-04-07, 07:26 PM	Here is what I see going on right now. I found something that ruined your 6 second cooldown theory for AoO's, and matched what I (and many others) have been saying all along. You can't keep arguing for your original theory, but after 7 pages of trying to prove us wrong, you just can't admit that we were right. So now, you are desperate for any interpretation that will let you say "Maybe I was wrong before, but so were you. Now I have the correct way, which still is not your way." Hey now, play nice.
Marcus Majarra 12-04-07, 07:44 PM	The actions that a character declares on his turn last an entire round. This is an incorrect conclusion. There is no mention of how long actions last. Actions are ephemeral, by definition. Unless an action has an explicit duration, it lasts but an instant. Turns are merely a mechanic to determine the order of resolution of actions. The fact that turns occur every round merely helps in approximating the idea that these actions are taken throughout the course of one round, but this is not the reality of the system. If this were the case, it should be possible, within reason, to interrupt actions at points of time other than the ones during which the actions are resolved. For example, the only ways to interrupt the casting of a spell are through attacks of opportunity or through readied actions. If spellcasting lasted more than an instant (assuming standard/swift action casting times), it would be possible to interrupt the casting of the spell at any point during the casting. The very fact that readied actions exist means that actions take place at different times and that these actions are ephemeral. Here's where your entire "every turn" AoO theory fails: Turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by current circumstances A turn is merely one point in a round. The actions a character takes, unless otherwise mentioned, take place within this point in time, and do not exist elsewhere. To correlate an action to the turn means that you need to explain how this correlation exists, if the action doesn't take place during the turn, since the turn is a specific point in time. This is why I'm stressing the point of where to pool off the AoOs, if they must be correlated to a turn. That seems pretty clear right there. Wait, it's clear, by your quote, as to when AoOs refresh? It doesn't seem clear to me. Here is what I see going on right now. I found something that ruined your 6 second cooldown theory for AoO's, and matched what I (and many others) have been saying all along. And you'd be seeing incorrectly. Your "find" doesn't ruin the 6-second cooldown theory. What it does is correlate AoOs with turns without any explanation as to how the relation exists. It answers in no way the title question of this topic. You can't keep arguing for your original theory, but after 7 pages of trying to prove us wrong, you just can't admit that we were right. And after 7 pages of trying to prove me wrong without any concrete evidence, you're still failing to admit to the possibility that you may be wrong. In all honesty, I have more faith in mvincent proving me wrong here than you. I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing he's realizing the RAW and supplements are evidently inconclusive on the matter, which is why he's going to Sage Advice with the matter. If there had been any clear answer, he would've already quoted this, or deferred to a thread in which this matter was conclusively discussed (the conclusion generally involves some RAW-level proof).
BoringInfoGuy 12-04-07, 10:29 PM	Hey now, play nice. This is how I honestly read the situation. The longer you argue for a point, the harder it is to let go. The words "I was wrong," taste rather bitter. But the longer you hold off saying them, the more bitter they become. Despite his claim to the contrary, I do not believe Marcus is capable of admitting he was wrong. At least, not after this long. He NEEDS to find some way to claim that he still has a viable argument. You've stated your respect for Marcus's opinion in past topics. As for me, I'm not certain if you've even seen any of my past posts. Yet you don't tell me that I'm wrong, only that I'm not being nice.
Ace_of_time 12-04-07, 10:32 PM	I think that the point is still being missed. If they were right then it wouldn't matter if you did get an AoO before their turn because it would start over on your turn. But he said that you only get another AoO that round if you have more for that round. Meaning it starts over at the begining of combat.
person132 12-04-07, 10:55 PM	Let's take that statement, "You can make 1 attack of opportunity per round?" We should think about it not as a maximum, but as a minimum, IMHO. Consider a group using the "AoOs refresh 1 round after they are used" interpretation. Player A acts on Initiative count 20. NPC B, on count 10, provokes an attack of opportunity. Player A takes it, killing said NPC. Player A acts again on Initiative count 20. NPC C, on count 11, provokes an attack of opportunity. Player A can't take it, because they've already used it. Player A acts again on Initiative count 20. NPC D, on count 8, provokes an attack of opportunity. Player A takes it. Player A acts again on Initiative count 20. NPC E, on count 9, provokes an attack of opportunity. Player A can't take it, because they've already used their AoO. 4 rounds have passed, and Player A has had 4 opportunities, but they can only take 2 of them. That is not "1 attack of opportunity per round".
Marcus Majarra 12-05-07, 12:24 AM	Despite his claim to the contrary, I do not believe Marcus is capable of admitting he was wrong. At least, not after this long. He NEEDS to find some way to claim that he still has a viable argument. This should not even be an issue. You're entitled to your opinion about whether I'm a reasonable person or not, but this has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I think that the point is still being missed. If they were right then it wouldn't matter if you did get an AoO before their turn because it would start over on your turn. But he said that you only get another AoO that round if you have more for that round. Meaning it starts over at the begining of combat. I understand what you mean, Ace. What you're suggesting is viable if you consider a combat round to last from the highest initiative until the end of the lowest initiative (i.e. until right before the highest initiative comes up again). In essence, this represents a combat round, but the beginning of the round you've chosen to look at is arbitrary. In essence, it's no different from choosing to start a round on a character's turn. You're picking an arbitrary point in the round from which to start counting AoOs and see if the limit on AoOs has been reached/overflown. Under the method you're proposing, you can guarantee the maximum number of AoOs if you start counting them on the highest initiative. The method BoringInfoGuy defends guarantees that same maximum if you start counting them on the turn of the character making the AoOs. The method I'm defending guarantees this maximum if you start counting when the AoO is actually made, and also guarantees that no single contiguous round exists during which the character makes more AoOs than allowed. Each method has its merits, but the RAW are inconclusive. We should think about it not as a maximum, but as a minimum, IMHO. If this were the case, there would be no point to expanding on the limit of AoOs per round with Combat Reflexes. You should also note that PHB p137 states that you can make only one AoO per round. Since AoOs are not a guaranteed event, this number is implicitly a maximum. 4 rounds have passed, and Player A has had 4 opportunities, but they can only take 2 of them. That is not "1 attack of opportunity per round". I have explained earlier why this approach doesn't work. In order to see if an event occurs once per round, you need to look at rounds individually. Tallying totals serves no purpose.
Ace_of_time 12-05-07, 07:00 PM	OK I'll go with you on that if you tell me something. Here's an overview of the initiative rules and some key concepts relating to initiative: Combat in the D&D game takes place in rounds 6 seconds long. The initiative rules exist to make sure that everyone involved in a battle gets a chance to act once during each round of combat. A round remains 6 seconds long no matter how many combatants become involved in a battle. This is possible because, as noted earlier, everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously. If everyone acts at the same time in a round then why should I make them wait till their turns each round for AoO when all of those where made at the same time?
Sinis 12-05-07, 07:56 PM	OK I'll go with you on that if you tell me something. If everyone acts at the same time in a round then why should I make them wait till their turns each round for AoO when all of those where made at the same time? To tell you the truth, I can't tell what you're asking.
Ace_of_time 12-05-07, 08:34 PM	If everyone acts at the same time during a 6 second round that means everyone makes AoO at the same time, about, so why as a player should I wait till my init count to get them back. (AoO) Even if you say that they get them back on their init count they all will get them back at the same time. Because everyone acts at the same time.
Marcus Majarra 12-05-07, 09:47 PM	Everything happens more or less at the same time because it's impossible to delve into any time spans shorter than 1 round. What's actually happening, however, is pretty muddled. The closest approximation you can make is to pick a 1-round window and say: "this is what happened during this round, more or less at the same time." When you look at AoOs, the idea is to pick the right 1-round window and prove that a character made up to one AoO in that window. Refreshing mechanics based on anything other than the AoOs being made means that you need to pick specific windows to establish this proof. For example, your method requires that you always select the 1-round window starting on the start of the turn of the character with the highest initiative. The popular (easy) method requires that you select the 1-round window starting on the start of the turn of the character making any given AoO. The method I'm proposing works regardless of the 1-round window you pick.
Ace_of_time 12-05-07, 10:09 PM	Except all I have to worry about is whether each one has used their AoO for that round as opposed to worring about whether their turn has come up yet and if they used it between this turn and the last turn, for four different party members and the monsters and NPC and so on. It doesn't matter how you break down the round. All creatures/ party act at the same time meaning even if you start them over at their init count they will still all get them back at 0 seconds. Because the start of every person/creatures turn is at 0 seconds in a round and they end their turns at 6 seconds. It doesn't matter if they used it at 1 second or 5 second. Even if we use yours, all their init counts start at 0 seconds.
Marcus Majarra 12-05-07, 10:36 PM	Because the start of every person/creatures turn is at 0 seconds in a round and they end their turns at 6 seconds. It doesn't matter if they used it at 1 second or 5 second. Even if we use yours, all their init counts start at 0 seconds. This is incorrect. A turn doesn't last 6 seconds. A turn is instantaneous. A turn merely indicates when a creature gets to perform all of its actions for that round. As for the 0-second marker, it is relative to whatever you want to use as a basis for counting time. For example, if you cast a spell that lasts 5 rounds at initiative 10, it will end 30 seconds after that initiative 10. Thus, the 0-second marker is placed at initiative 10, and is incremented by 6 seconds every time initiative 10 is reached.
Ace_of_time 12-05-07, 11:10 PM	Your confusing init counts for round seconds. When I said turn I meant the point at which the player takes his/her action during each round. Not the D&D term "turn". Each round is 6 second long. You think that I'm talking about the round as in how many persons act in it. I am refering to the ammount of time each round takes. Each round is 6 second long. If you were to time a round that time would start at 0 second and end at 6 seconds. This is the what everything in D&D is timed off of. Now each init count in that 6 second just helps the DM keep track of what all goes on during that 6 second of combat. So the person with init of 17 goes start her actions at 0 second, Just as if you were timing her with a stop watch. When she is done taking her actions for that 6 seconds she ends up at 6 seconds. The the person with 10 init goes starting at 0 and end their actions at 6 second and so on until everyone has acted for that 6 seconds. Then the next 6 second of combat happen. If you took those 6 second and play them out like a movie all actions taken during that 6 seconds of combat would happen at the same time. Now if we use your way for AoO and start on their init count or we use my way and start at the start of the 6 seconds of combat All players/ creatures will get their AoO back at the same time in real time. The start of the 6 seconds of combat. 0-1 is 1 second 1-2 is 2 seconds 2-3 is 3 seconds 3-4 is 4 seconds 4-5 is 5 seconds 5-6 is 6 seconds Now the other way and remember there were only 3 ways discribed. Is if they had to wait 6 second from the time it was used in which case. If someone used their AoO on the 3rd second of combat they would have to wait till the 3rd second of the next 6 seconds of combat. But that is still 6 seconds.
Marcus Majarra 12-06-07, 01:21 AM	When she is done taking her actions for that 6 seconds she ends up at 6 seconds. This is where your argument falls short. When she is done taking her actions, she's not up to 6 seconds. In fact, we do not know how long those actions actually took; all we know is that when her turn comes up again, the stopwatch will have reached 6 seconds. If your theory were to be true, then you'd have to argue that AoOs take no time at all, which is certainly not true. If someone used their AoO on the 3rd second of combat they would have to wait till the 3rd second of the next 6 seconds of combat. But that is still 6 seconds. This is pretty much the basis for the method I'm proposing. If something takes place at the 3rd second of combat and occurs once every round, it should occur at seconds 3, 9, 15, etc. Of course, we cannot evaluate individual seconds in D&D. We can, however, evaluate initiatives. We know for a fact that there is exactly 1 round (6 seconds) between initiative 15 in one round, and right before initiative 15 comes up again. Between these two initiatives, we know for a fact that a single round takes place. We don't know how many seconds passed since the start of combat to reach initiative 15, because there is an infinity of possible initiative counts for each round of combat.
Ace_of_time 12-06-07, 01:59 AM	So when it says 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). That doesn't mean stops the flow. Yes we do know. Everybody during combat acts at the same time. Some move first then attack and some attack first then move. You are right that from init count 15 of one round is 6 seconds to the init count of the next 15 init count but what you are failing to see that that 6 seconds happens at the same time as init count 3 to init count 3 of the next rounds. The DM just uses that to see how combat will go in that round. THE COMBAT ROUND Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. ACTION TYPES An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are four types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, and free actions. In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action. In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action. Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions. Move Action: A move action allows you to move your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat. You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions (see below). Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step. Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions, below, detail which actions allow this option. It doesn't matter if there are two or 20 people in combat. It is still the same 6 seconds. Each round represents 6 seconds If you were right ether a full round action would take any time at all or each round round action would take 6 seconds of time making the 20 people take 180 seconds in one round. But that is not the case. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions.
Marcus Majarra 12-06-07, 02:14 AM	You're not making any sense. You've managed to provide a quote that action types tell you how long an action takes to perform, but you're failing to mention what this duration is. In reality, all action types truly defer to an effort, not an amount of time. Everybody during combat acts at the same time. This is not true. Within any 1-round window, everyone ends up acting at more or less the same time. Actions do not take place at the exact same time, because no two characters can have the same initiative (see PHB p136). Only two kinds of actions are truly simultaneous: readied actions and AoOs. Every other action happens at an entirely different time. This is made evident by the fact that you cannot interrupt an action once it's completed. For example, if a wizard casts a fireball spell and defeats some creatures with it, these creatures don't get to act, even if their next action would've taken out the wizard. This proves that creatures do not act at the same time in combat. The reality of actions is that, every round, you're entitled to a certain amount of effort to expend: one standard action, one move action (or a full-round action in lieu of these two), and as many free actions as your DM allows, under normal circumstances. These actions all take place at one specific time every round: on your turn. They do not exist outside your turn and your turn merely lasts but an instant. All of these actions have a 1-round cooldown.
Ace_of_time 12-06-07, 02:49 AM	FREE ACTIONS Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below. And for ready and AoO it doesn't sayat the same time as it says. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.and. 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). So AoO and a ready action are resolved first then the you continue as normal. Now as stated above post, "Each round represents 6 seconds" Which means a Full round action takes up the same ammount of time as a round that is why it is called a FULL ROUND ACTION. It takes a full 6 seconds to complete. and since you can take "a standard action and a move action" or a Full round action, Which =6 seconds of game world time. That means that a standard action and move action performed together take 6 seconds game world time. Most people just says each takes 3 seconds since you can take another move action as a stanard action meaning it takes the same ammount of time. You can say that it is divide up into init counts and that is how long one is but, "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.'' relevance meaning "relation to the matter at hand" because Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. You could divide it up into a 100 init counts and each one would happen in the same 6 seconds of combat.
Sinis 12-06-07, 05:18 PM	If everyone acts at the same time during a 6 second round that means everyone makes AoO at the same time, about, so why as a player should I wait till my init count to get them back. (AoO) Even if you say that they get them back on their init count they all will get them back at the same time. Because everyone acts at the same time. This is plainly false. Let's say you have two wizards, each capable of casting finger of death, and each having a fortitude save sure to fail. If they both acted at the exact same time, they'd both die. Yet, in D&D, this isn't actually possible. Participants in combat do *not* act at the same time.
Marcus Majarra 12-06-07, 05:44 PM	Which means a Full round action takes up the same ammount of time as a round that is why it is called a FULL ROUND ACTION. It takes a full 6 seconds to complete. This is incorrect. A full-round action merely takes up all the effort you can invest in a single round, not a full round of time. The difference is made obvious when you compare a sorcerer spell under the effects of metamagic (1 full-round action) to a spell such as summon monster (1 full round). The former is cast during a character's turn (and ceases to be cast afterwards), whereas the latter is cast throughout an entire round (and can be interrupted at any point during that round).
Ace_of_time 12-06-07, 08:24 PM	When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. Even if you say it effort not time it all boils down to the same thing. I'll be sure from now on to add ALMOST the same time. Doesn't matter, that statment surely doesn't mean that one person act then the next and the next. It means all the actions during the round happen at ALMOST the same time. That means there isn't enough difference in the start time to matter. Which still means they would get AoO back at ALMOST the same time even if you made them wait till their init counts.
Marcus Majarra 12-06-07, 09:16 PM	Your entire statement makes no sense. Going by the rules, characters act sequentially. Nothing really happens at the same time. The only reason why it's stated that characters act more or less at the same time is because you cannot look at windows of time smaller than one round. These simply do not exist in D&D. In order to simplify, the designers stated that actions take place more or less at the same time, because it's impossible to determine exactly when an action takes place within a round. However, actions still always take place at different times. And effort doesn't equal to time. Actions measure effort; rounds measure time.
Sinis 12-06-07, 11:10 PM	When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions.Even if you say it effort not time it all boils down to the same thing. I'll be sure from now on to add ALMOST the same time. Doesn't matter, that statment surely doesn't mean that one person act then the next and the next. It means all the actions during the round happen at ALMOST the same time. That means there isn't enough difference in the start time to matter. Which still means they would get AoO back at ALMOST the same time even if you made them wait till their init counts. I'm not sure you're parsing that sentence correctly. When it says "When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions." it means the following: On your turn, you perform all the actions that you would perform in that round. Let me make it really clear: "...entire round's worth of actions." You seem to have interpreted as something entirely different that no one else understands. Edit: To everyone, But seriously, who cares? We all use the systems we want to use. Most of us have picked "At the beginning of the participant's action." Except Ace-of-time. Is this just about who wins the argument now?
BobbyMac 12-07-07, 03:29 PM	Class? Please can I have your attention? Thank you. Now that you have all found your seats we can start this semester's Quantum D&D 101. Ok let's assume that you put a displacer beast into a non trapped chest with a DC 30 lock along with a flask of acid. The flask of acid is attached to a random d20 by means of a mechanism which will break the acid flask on a roll of natural 1 and kill the displacer beast. Now suppose we set the mechanism and lock the box. Is the beast alive or dead? No scrying allowed! sorry I just had to break in .... FWIW it sounds like yall are discussing combat round quanta with turns representing parameterization. also FWIW in this match Marcus looks to be the winner by decision... the rules regarding AoO are iffy whilst his descriptions of turns and rounds is spot on... YMMV of course...
mvincent 12-07-07, 07:14 PM	I'm glad the arguing is over. Perhaps we should make a synthesis of the two views discussed here, in case anyone wants to refer to them (such as mvincent, since he seems to keep a database of conclusively discussed topic links).Ah. Just noticed this post. Indeed, this issue too previously was conclusively discussed (here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-547834)). I hadn't posted the link earlier only because it's not very smooth reading.
Toki_Wartooth 12-07-07, 07:26 PM	Ok. Let's go back to the beginning. The rules says: "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round." Rules-lawyers know that (for debating purposes) "almost" means "this rule applies unless shown/stated otherwise"... meaning that to prove the rule *doesn't* apply you would need to unambiguously show that it doesn't (i.e. any such exceptions are typically noted in other text, or are inherently obvious). I say again: if a rule says "For almost all purposes", then the onus of proof is on anyone contending it doesn't apply. Does anyone here disagree with that?
Grizzled Gryphon 12-07-07, 08:58 PM	I haven't read this entire exhaustive post, but here is what I do. If you make an AoO on init count of, say, 15, then they refresh next round on init count 15.
Ace_of_time 12-07-07, 09:39 PM	I'm not saying who is right or who is wrong. I'm saying it doesn't matter when you give them back because both (at the start of each round and on init count) happens at the same time in the in game world. What seems to be getting confused here is that I'm talking about a round in a game world as opposed to at the gaming table. For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. This statement, To ME is talking about the init count durings round. They are saying that it doesn't matter who goes first or last during a round. Because all actions during a combat round happen in the same 6 second window. What would be the point of even having AoO system if each person act at different times? To be clear why even give a AoO if I have already use all the effort for one round and then the next enemy take his actions. There would be no way to provoke one if the actions didn't overlap during a round at least. I just don't understand how at "All Most" the same times means everyone acts one after another till the next round of Combat, sorry.
Ace_of_time 12-07-07, 10:25 PM	Here's an overview of the initiative rules and some key concepts relating to initiative: Combat in the D&D game takes place in rounds 6 seconds long. The initiative rules exist to make sure that everyone involved in a battle gets a chance to act once during each round of combat. A round remains 6 seconds long no matter how many combatants become involved in a battle. This is possible because, as noted earlier, everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously. Initiative checks determine the order in which combatants' actions are resolved during a round. Once the DM establishes an initiative order for a battle, there's very little that can change it. As noted on page 136 in the Player's Handbook, an initiative check is a Dexterity check. Few other things can affect an initiative check. Feats such as Improved Initiative can improve your initiative bonus. Any improvement or impairment to your Dexterity score that is in effect when the battle begins affects your initiative for that battle. If your Dexterity score changes during the battle, your initiative result doesn't change. For example, if you receive a cat's gracespell before a battle begins, you get the benefit of the improvement to your Dexterity score when you make your initiative check for that battle. If a foe dispels your cat's grace spell after the battle begins, your Dexterity score decreases appropriately, but your initiative number doesn't change as the result of the decrease. The initiative order in a battle isn't completely set in stone, however. The ready and delay actions both have the potential to change a combatant's place in the order (and they usually do). Part Three considers these actions in more detail. As noted earlier, one pass through the initiative order constitutes one 6-second round. One could say that a round of combat begins just before the combatant with the highest initiative number acts and ends just after the combatant with the lowest initiative number acts. Despite the foregoing, remember that the term "round" can be relative. It can refer to one complete initiative cycle, or it can refer to the period of time between one combatant's turn and that combatant's next turn. From the page 138 of the Player's Handbook: Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round. Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.) Bolded and underlined a few points. This week, we'll finish our look at actions by examining full-round actions and various special actions. Full-Round Actions As noted in Part One, a full-round action uses up all your time in a round. You can't combine a full-round action with a standard or a move action, though if your full-round action does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step. Move Action: A move action is an activity that allows you to move your speed across the battlefield or perform some other activity that takes a similar amount of time. You're allowed one move action during your turn. You can take a second move action during your turn in place of the standard action you're also allowed (see below). You cannot, however, take a second standard action in place of a move action. Standard Action: A standard action is a kind of action that covers any activity you can perform and still have time left to move your speed during the same turn (see Rules of the Game: All About Movement). You are allowed only one standard action each turn, and sometimes you can't perform any standard actions at all. Well he said TIME not Effort, that weird. Maybe he just means effort.
Marcus Majarra 12-08-07, 01:15 AM	And yet, you can't measure time in actions. How is it that a slowed character can only take a single standard action every round, or that chokers can take an extra standard action every round? You're giving too much importance to fluff and too little to crunch. In terms of game mechanics, actions are not measured in time and no two actions take place at the same time.
mvincent 12-08-07, 12:56 PM	For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. This statement, To ME is talking about the init count durings round. They are saying that it doesn't matter who goes first or last during a round. Because all actions during a combat round happen in the same 6 second window.It appears to be saying the that rounds are cyclic and are "a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round". In either case, "there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round" means that AoO's would not refresh on init count zero unless they specifically said so.
Ace_of_time 12-08-07, 04:15 PM	Combat in the D&D game takes place in rounds 6 seconds long. The initiative rules exist to make sure that everyone involved in a battle gets a chance to act once during each round of combat. A round remains 6 seconds long no matter how many combatants become involved in a battle. This is possible because, as noted earlier, everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously. I am saying that a round of combat is a 6 seconds window of combat. Every thing that happens in that round happens in the same 6 second window. Because they, people in combat, "assumed to act more or less simultaneously.". So it doesn't matter which init come first or last during that 6 second window. Now if you say that out of game everyone's AoO start over at their init count in game they will all still get them back at the same time. I don't like My players to meta game. So I try to look at everything as it would appear in game. There is no cycle. If a encounter last 5 round in game that encounter took 30 seconds. After the first 6 seconds you don't stop time and then start it over again at 0. Everyones action for that round would be completed at 6 second of time the again at 12, 18, 24, 30. Hence 5 rounds have happened. Everything in D&D is timed off this. If a spell last 1 minute then it stops in 10 rounds Because every round is 6 seconds of time. That is why there is no "relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round". Note: To be clear, I give everyone in combat their AoO back every 6 seconds of in game time. One round.
Marcus Majarra 12-08-07, 05:22 PM	You're making one incorrect assumption in that combat lasts a number of rounds. Unless the last character to act in a combat is the one with the lowest initiative, combat will end at a fraction of a round. For example, if I have three combat participants, one acting on init 20, one on init 15, and one on init 10, and combat ends with the one acting on init 15 after this participant acted three times, then you cannot say that combat lasted three rounds, for if this were true, the participant with init 10 would've also acted three times, which is not the case. Thus, combat lasted between 2 and 3 rounds. We cannot say exactly how long combat lasted, but we know for sure that combat lasted exactly 2 rounds after the participant with init 15 acted first. So it doesn't matter which init come first or last during that 6 second window. Actually it does matter. What you quoted doesn't show that order doesn't matter. It shows that the number of participants doesn't matter because, in the end, you're only condensing a larger number of actions within the same round. There is no mention as to why order should not be important, and that's because order IS important. There is no cycle. Except that there is a cycle. The sequence of actions is cyclic by definition.
Ace_of_time 12-08-07, 05:43 PM	Except for the fact that he says " everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously." simultaneous Main Entry: si·mul·ta·neous Pronunciation: \ˌsī-məl-ˈtā-nē-əs, -nyəs also ˌsi-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin simul at the same time + English -taneous (as in instantaneous) — more at same Date: circa 1660 1 : existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident 2 : satisfied by the same values of the variables <simultaneous equations> Now for you first part. Are you really saying I'm wrong because someone could end combat on the first round, there for end combat. Or are you saying that killing the enemy/ies on the first round some how magically stops time.:confused: :confused: And I believe I said 6 seconds, which just so happens to be one round. Note: Init counts are cycles but a round is just 6 seconds.
Ace_of_time 12-08-07, 06:43 PM	Ok let be fair about this. How long do you think a person's turn takes? 1 Second= 100 miliseconds.
Marcus Majarra 12-09-07, 02:15 AM	A turn is instantaneous. This is evidenced mathematically by the fact that you can fit an infinity of turns within a single round and because no two turns overlap.
Ace_of_time 12-09-07, 03:28 AM	But that the things. All TURNS DURING A ROUND OVER LAP. The sage said so him self. That is how you can fit as many as you want. "From the page 138 of the Player's Handbook: Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round. Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.)" I have posted it before he says, " This is possible because, as noted earlier, everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously."
weasel0 12-09-07, 10:53 AM	Yes, mechanically speaking, the participants act one after another. This is not, however, how the in-game action takes place. The only reason this is set up the way it is, is because the DM is not the server over at blue and can only adjucate one participants action at a time. If we remember back to the "olden days" of 2nd ed, everyone stated their actions more or less at the beginning of each round and then rolled to see who was first and on and on. This was a more appropriate representative form of the in-game action, but held much possible potential for confusion, people wanting to change their actions in response to things that happened in game, and overall, was a lot of book keeping. I don't think the in-game has changed any. I believe the only thing that has changed, is the out-of-game system itself. It was streamlined, and simplified to speed up adjunction of the actions in battle. OTOH, does it matter? If you stop posting(I know, I know) this will stop popping back up to the top of the list and I wont have to see it there anymore. :P
Marcus Majarra 12-09-07, 12:09 PM	Ace, your quotes do not support your claims mechanically. Performing your round's worth of actions doesn't mean that your actions last 1 round. If I give you $250 every month and you get to spend your month's worth of earnings every 15th, your money spending doesn't last 1 month. Similarly, if at every initiative 15, you get one standard + one move action to spend right away, your actions last but an instant. And keep in mind: more or less simultaneously doesn't mean simultaneously. It can quite possibly mean that actions take place so closely from one another that they seem simultaneous. However, nowhere in the rules will you find anything that states that actions take place simultaneously. Even AoOs and readied actions, which have the potential to interrupt another action, take place before the action they're interrupting. Yes, mechanically speaking, the participants act one after another. This is not, however, how the in-game action takes place. Actually, it IS how the in-game action takes place. If all action were more simultaneous, you would resolve every round's full allotment of turns after everyone took his turn without any importance given to order. In reality, no two actions take place at the same time and order is important.
Sinis 12-09-07, 03:15 PM	I can't believe how patient you are, Marcus.
BoringInfoGuy 12-09-07, 07:32 PM	Here Ace. <snip> If we look at the very beginning of the All About Initiative Article, then we see this: Player characters in the D&D game often go looking for trouble and, more often than not, they find it. When trouble arises, combat is sure to follow. The action during a round of battle in the D&D game takes place more or less simultaneously; however, resolving everyone's activities at the same time isn't too practical, so everybody must take turns. That's where initiative comes in. In game, turns do not exist. The characters in a battle do not take their actions and wait for everyone else to go before they take their next action. Turns are merely the method the Players and DM use to resolve combat. This is made more obvious when you look at Monster Initiative: Monster Initiative: Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. So how long does a turn last? To the characters, they don't exist. So they can't take any time. For the players, a turn lasts as long as it takes for the player to declare his actions for his turn, and resolve them. For the Player of a low level fighter, that can be as simple as declaring that he is attacking the orc again, rolling his attack roll, and (hopefully) rolling his damage. The DM will record any damage taken to the creature, declare if the orc was killed, and possibly describe the fighter's attack. Even with a simple action, it takes longer than 6 seconds to resolve a character's turn. Now, if the player was instead playing a high level wizard casting an area of effect spell that hits several creatures and requires a saving throw from each then his turn would take much longer. However long a player's turn lasts, the character's actions still take up to 6 seconds of time in the game world. This is made clear by this statement: Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, they can do in 1 round.
Ace_of_time 12-09-07, 08:06 PM	I just find it funny that It takes me In real life 3 seconds to walk 30' but my PC has some magical ability that instantly complete an action without use time. Maybe the DM has an aura of time stop around all combatants during combat.:rolleyes: Just for a mood point. When you play out a combat scean or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occuring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time that lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. It goes on from there but I'm sure you can read it your self.
Marcus Majarra 12-09-07, 09:32 PM	Ace, you still need to realize that, despite the so-called simultaneous aspect of actions, they are never resolved simultaneously. Everything that relates to actions relates to the resolution of these actions. For example, let's assume that a standard melee attack takes 3 seconds of time, for simplicity's sake. My character decides to make a standard melee attack. Assuming this was my first action this turn, when does the damage from my attack start to exist, assuming I hit? It only exists after the attack is resolved. In concrete terms, this means that the damage starts to exist after the 3 seconds are over, under the base assumption. Now, let's consider something different from an attack. Consider, a use of the Stunning Fist feat. As far as the RAW go, it requires as much time/effort to perform as a regular unarmed strike, so going by the earlier assumption that a standard attack requires 3 seconds, I can make a Stunning Fist attempt in three seconds, and resolve it when these 3 seconds are over. If I stun my target, when will the condition fade away? According to the RAW, it will be at the start of my next turn. This means that the effect will go away when I begin resolving my next actions. Follow me so far? Good. AoOs are a particular issue in that they exist in addition to other actions, and in an uncertain number. Within a particular window of 1 round, you can have no AoOs, just like you can have 1, or you can have many, if you have Combat Reflexes. As such, it's quite difficult to measure the exact time an AoO requires, much less the exact time any other action requires, if we assume that all the actions you make take a specific amount of time. This becomes even more confusing if you do have Combat Reflexes and a very high Dex score. The entire premise of being able to make so many AoOs without diminishing the time you need to perform other actions loses feasability. What do we learn here? We learn that, by virtue of threatening opponents, it would be assumed that you're continuously trying to attack your opponent, in addition to your other actions, which is why it's possible for you to see if you've a chance to land an attack when an opponent provokes an AoO. By default, when threatening your opponents, you're actually attacking them at a fixed rate. This rate depends on whether or not you have Combat Reflexes. If you have the feat and a higher Dex, it stands to reason that this rate increases. However, the rate remains fixed. You're not pressuring your opponent any faster at one point in time than at another. Under this assumption, it becomes even more evident why refreshing AoOs one round after resolution is preferable. Threatening an opponent is a constant activity, which allows for AoOs at a certain frequency. If AoOs take place within less than one round of one another (assuming no Combat Reflexes), you're implying that you're pressuring your opponents more at a certain point in time than at another, and this begs the question as to why you shouldn't be able to perform more AoOs within a given round. The simple answer is that you cannot keep the pressure up. Thus, if you can only make one AoO every round, it shouldn't be possible for you to be able to discern a round during which more than one AoO takes place. Yes, I understand why you grant importance to the start/end of rounds. The thing is: the start/end of rounds is relative to the resolution of every action/effect. I can indeed measure a full round between two subsequent initiative counts of the same number. All actions are assumed to take place more or less simulatenously within every 1-round window, with sequential resolution as always. Because of this, AoOs need to have a 1-round cooldown to remain consistent.
Ace_of_time 12-09-07, 11:09 PM	So now you are saying that it is better to go with the 6 second after it is used?:confused: Lets look at your Example. Someone attacks on their turn and assuming that that action takes 3 seconds the damage from that attack would after we resolved the action IE end of the 3 seconds. which would look like this, IN game. 0-1 Person A decides to attack 1-2 2-3 deals damage from person A 3-4 4-5 5-6 Now if their are three people who attack before the monster on 18, 15, 11 init counts. 18s attack deals damage after the resolved 3 seconds, then it is 15s attack and it deals damage after the end of his 3 second action, and then 11s turn and he deals damage after the end of his 3 second action. Which would look like this IN game. 0-1 18, 15, 11 all decide to attack the enemy 1-2 2-318, 15, 11 deals damage at the end of the action 3-4 4-5 5-6 Now you say it is ok to use they rules when they say on your turn but when they say every 6 second round we should assume that means on init count or is it 6 second after use. (I'm confused on which one is your view now) Stunning fist, I'm glad you used this one thank's. STUNNING FIST [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8. Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next action). A stunned character can’t act, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a –2 penalty to AC. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned. Now as you can see It says 1 round but then notes that it is timed on your init count resolving just before your turn. Now it has been said that when they said 1 round for AoO that they mean Init conts of the people. But: Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. makes no notes to when. Which means you use the default Every 6 Second combat round. Ans if you read the first part of the DMG you will see that To A DM there is a start and end to a round because a DM has to keep track of the rounds that have pasted. But in game there is no start or end to rounds they just happen every 6 seconds of combat. Now I believe we are on actions. There are three actions that you can take during one 6 second round. standard and move actions move and move actions full round actions These action represent the ammount of time and effort it takes to complete the action you are taking and for the most part all actions are divided up into these. But, ACTION TYPES An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are four types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, and free actions. In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action. In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action. Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.You can also perform one or more free actions. And AoO is a free attack. We are not talking about a standard attack. We are talking about a free attack that can be taken at any time during a round of combat as long as you are not FF unless you have CR feat. Now you can USE one AoO per round but after you use it the enemy can still provoke them you just can't act on it. I don't interpert the rules. All I do is read the rules and follow what they say.
Marcus Majarra 12-10-07, 12:27 AM	So now you are saying that it is better to go with the 6 second after it is used? Um... that has been my position since almost the very beginning. While I can understand other ways to rule on AoO refreshment, this is what I see as most appropriate. Now you say it is ok to use they rules when they say on your turn but when they say every 6 second round we should assume that means on init count or is it 6 second after use. 6 seconds after resolution, from what I gather from the RAW. makes no notes to when. Which means you use the default Every 6 Second combat round. Ans if you read the first part of the DMG you will see that To A DM there is a start and end to a round because a DM has to keep track of the rounds that have pasted. But in game there is no start or end to rounds they just happen every 6 seconds of combat. There is no default combat round. Nothing in the RAW suggests this. In fact, RAW indicate that there is almost no relevance to the beginning and end of rounds. This means that, by default, you should assume that the start/end of rounds is irrelevant. By default, a combat round doesn't start with the highest initiative and end with the lowest. A combat round starts on any initiative and ends when the same initiative is reached again. Events that happen every round happen every six seconds. Every six seconds means every time a given initiative is reached. If an AoO is resolved on initiative 15 and takes place every round, then it will take place every time initiative 15 is reached. I do, however, understand where exactly you're coming from with this: Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) This is the paragraph that serves as the foundation for your entire argument. Since this paragraph describes the combat round as lasting from highest initiative to lowest initiative and mentions actions, you assume that a round's actions are contained within this specific combat round. If this were the only thing stated, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the following paragraph indicates that the start/end of rounds is irrelevant unless otherwise mentioned, and since AoOs make no mention as to why these should be important, they should be disregarded. As it is, as BoringInfoGuy stated above, there is precedent for actions that occur once every period require a cooldown of that same period. For example, between two uses of a daily spell-like ability, you need to wait 24 hours. An AoO is essentially the same. Whereas the SLA can be used once per day, the AoO can be used once per round. This mandates a cooldown of one day for the SLA and one round for the AoO.
WizO_Keldar 12-10-07, 12:56 AM	Please make sure you all stay within the discussion at hand. Do not name names nor make any differences of opinion personal. Some posts have already been edited. Folks......this is a game. Even disagreements in rules/strategy can be fun, if we all stay civil and respect each other. Thanks.
Ace_of_time 12-10-07, 09:45 PM	Maybe you should just read the whole combat part of the DMG. After that you can look on page 22 DMG under starting an Encounter. Where it says "Ultimately it's you (DM) who decides when the first round begins and where each side is when it does." And later it says that you should keep track of the number of round after combat begins as to keep combat running smoothly. PHB is for players and the DMG is for the DM and he/she uses rules in there for combat. This is true based on the premise that the character is performing the action in question on his own initiative. As it is, AoOs rarely take place during a character's own turn. Since we're necessarily dealing with one-round windows, the only way to guarantee the once per round idea is to start the window in question on the initiative during which the action is executed. Consider, for example, making a stunning fist attempt as an AoO. When do you recover the ability to make another stunning fist attempt? One round later. It stands to reason that you should also recover the ability to make the AoO one round later. Actually, my proof shows that I can pick a single one-round window and demonstrate that more than one AoO took place during that one-round window. As you stated yourself, a round usually means the time span between an initiative count and the same count one round later. In my example, I used the round starting at initiative 19 as proof. Can you deny that, in this round, more than one AoO was executed? You should also take note that since we're dealing with effects that can be used only once per round, it serves little purpose to actually delve into an entire combat. You don't need more than two round's worth of actions to display a single entire round. The problem with your entire example is that you're not demonstrating that you can't make more than one AoO per round. You're merely demonstrating that characters recover the potential to make AoOs once per round. These are two very different things. The entire AoO system lists nothing that indicates when you recover the ability to make AoOs. The only thing stated is that you can make only one AoO per round. The only way to guarantee this is by making sure that, for exactly one round after making that AoO, you cannot make another. The main failing with your example also lies in the fact that you're arbitrarily picking specific one-round windows and using them as proof. If you want to demonstrate that you'll never make more than one AoO per round, you need to pick all possible one-round windows you can imagine and show that in none of these more than one AoO is made.Sorry I confused you with someone else. But timing AoO base on every combatants turn. Little much. I think we know whatis happening here. Of course now that I have found that in the rules too. You will most like say that that doesn't mean that it means this because that is how it makes sense to this person. What ever, it is clear how the rules work. Interpret it how you like and I'll just USE THE RULES HOW THEY ARE WORDED. To:BoringInfoGuy, After I read your post I looked back and see your point. That doesn't give a person the right to argue over and over and over after being proven wrong more then once. I have been known to be wrong in the past a number of times. Most people just say sorry.
BoringInfoGuy 12-10-07, 10:10 PM	My mistake Keldar. And my apologies Marcus. As it is, as BoringInfoGuy stated above, there is precedent for actions that occur once every period require a cooldown of that same period. For example, between two uses of a daily spell-like ability, you need to wait 24 hours. An AoO is essentially the same. Whereas the SLA can be used once per day, the AoO can be used once per round. This mandates a cooldown of one day for the SLA and one round for the AoO. And as I also stated, the description that Spell Like Abilities say that IN THIS CASE, a "day" is any contiguous period of 24 hours. That means that in other cases, a "day" does not mean any contiguous period of 24 hours. There is no part of the description of Attacks of Opportunity to support that they work the same way that Spell Like Abilities do. And as I stated even earlier, the Rules of the Game article All About Attacks of Opportunity says that you can make only one attack of opportunity each turn, as opposed to the PHB, which says one per round. That is rather conclusive evidence that the Attacks of Opportunity refresh on the characters turn. After all, once per round could mean from the top of initiative to the bottom - if you ignore that is not the usual way to measure rounds. And you could argue that once per round means from every possible initiative count - if you ignore that a round usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. But a turn is a much more specific term. (Ignoring the definitions that are regarding the ability to Turn Undead and an Undead being turned) What a turn means is the point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. So we have one source that says you only get one AoO per round. And we have another source that says you only get one AoO each turn. When you put them together, all that it states is that you get one AoO per 6 second window, each time your initiative comes up. When you look at all the facts that have been written, without dismissing those that don't fit your case, and without adding to what the rules actually say, you end up with only one system that matches RAW. Attacks of Opportunity refresh on your initiative. Same as every other combat action you can take. Which is why this is the system that the majority of gamers use. It is no mistake that this is the system most people claimed was correct, and it is the system that you find used in official tournament play.
Ace_of_time 12-10-07, 10:44 PM	Well if you go with what was stated earlier in the thread you have to look at all the 6 seconds windows so you can get 1 AoO on every persons init count, with that line of thinking.:D :D :D ;) That's a min of 4 for most.
Marcus Majarra 12-10-07, 11:07 PM	There is no part of the description of Attacks of Opportunity to support that they work the same way that Spell Like Abilities do. I would beg to differ. SLAs are usable a certain number of times per given time period, just like AoOs are usable a certain number of times per given time period. For a more concrete example, an astral deva can use blade barrier once per day. Similarly, a creature can make one AoO per round. If we can argue that the SLA requires a 1-day cooldown between uses, we can also argue that the AoO requires a 1-round cooldown between uses. And as I stated even earlier, the Rules of the Game article All About Attacks of Opportunity says that you can make only one attack of opportunity each turn, as opposed to the PHB, which says one per round. That is rather conclusive evidence that the Attacks of Opportunity refresh on the characters turn. Barring the fact that the PHB takes precedence over the RotG, having an ability that can be used once per turn semantically implies that this ability needs to be used on a turn (as opposed to be refreshed on a turn), because turns are instantaneous by definition. Rounds, on the other hand, are an actual period of time, and better include the notion of AoOs, since AoOs are not limited to a character's turn. This is why I'm inclined to dismiss the RotG on this issue until further clarifications are provided. As I've stated above, it might be a useful clue in confirming the theory that AoOs refresh on a participant's turn, but this evidently requires clarification. But a turn is a much more specific term. (Ignoring the definitions that are regarding the ability to Turn Undead and an Undead being turned) What a turn means is the point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. So we have one source that says you only get one AoO per round. And we have another source that says you only get one AoO each turn. This is why the RotG are inconclusive. If "you can make only one AoO each turn," this means that the AoO must be made on the turn. This is all inconclusive data. When you put them together, all that it states is that you get one AoO per 6 second window, each time your initiative comes up. Except that you're not putting it all together. You're establishing your ruling on an interpretation of the RotG article and dismissing the rest. Barring the fact that this interpretation lacks concision, it still doesn't amount to the sum of all the printed evidence. I don't mean to criticize, but Ace is making a better point of this, since the quotes he's providing leave little room for interpretation. The truth is that nowhere is it mentioned when AoOs are refreshed. All we know is when AoOs can be made. We have two claims: "You can make only one AoO per round." (PHB) "You can make only one AoO each turn." (RotG) The latter statement can be dismissed because AoOs are not implicitly made on your turn, and turns are instantaneous by definition. The former cannot be dismissed, since a round represents a span of time (unlike a turn). Under this premise, the rule interpretation we should be addressing is what round are we talking about? Correlating this round to the character's turn is the most unlikely option, since a turn represents the moment a character's actions are resolved, whereas AoOs are not necessarily resolved at this point in time. In other words, AoOs are in no way connected to a character's turn. The other two options available are to consider combat rounds as absolute units of time that measure how long combat has lasted (Ace's theory) or as movable spans of time that are relative to whatever event you want to look at (my theory). Which is why this is the system that the majority of gamers use. It is no mistake that this is the system most people claimed was correct, and it is the system that you find used in official tournament play. These claims need to be verified. Regardless, it's not because something is popular that it's necessarily right. As I've stated earlier, Gallileo was excommunicated by the church for claiming that the sun didn't revolve around the Earth (it was the other way around). This claim was not popular at the time, but we now know that it was valid. If everything amounted to a popular vote, then we should simply run polls on rules counseling and be done with it.
Ace_of_time 12-11-07, 12:03 AM	I would beg to differ. SLAs are usable a certain number of times per given time period, just like AoOs are usable a certain number of times per given time period. For a more concrete example, an astral deva can use blade barrier once per day. Similarly, a creature can make one AoO per round. If we can argue that the SLA requires a 1-day cooldown between uses, we can also argue that the AoO requires a 1-round cooldown between uses. Barring the fact that the PHB takes precedence over the RotG, having an ability that can be used once per turn semantically implies that this ability needs to be used on a turn (as opposed to be refreshed on a turn), because turns are instantaneous by definition. Rounds, on the other hand, are an actual period of time, and better include the notion of AoOs, since AoOs are not limited to a character's turn. This is why I'm inclined to dismiss the RotG on this issue until further clarifications are provided. As I've stated above, it might be a useful clue in confirming the theory that AoOs refresh on a participant's turn, but this evidently requires clarification. This is why the RotG are inconclusive. If "you can make only one AoO each turn," this means that the AoO must be made on the turn. This is all inconclusive data. Except that you're not putting it all together. You're establishing your ruling on an interpretation of the RotG article and dismissing the rest. Barring the fact that this interpretation lacks concision, it still doesn't amount to the sum of all the printed evidence. I don't mean to criticize, but Ace is making a better point of this, since the quotes he's providing leave little room for interpretation. The truth is that nowhere is it mentioned when AoOs are refreshed. All we know is when AoOs can be made. We have two claims: "You can make only one AoO per round." (PHB) "You can make only one AoO each turn." (RotG) The latter statement can be dismissed because AoOs are not implicitly made on your turn, and turns are instantaneous by definition. The former cannot be dismissed, since a round represents a span of time (unlike a turn). Under this premise, the rule interpretation we should be addressing is what round are we talking about? Correlating this round to the character's turn is the most unlikely option, since a turn represents the moment a character's actions are resolved, whereas AoOs are not necessarily resolved at this point in time. In other words, AoOs are in no way connected to a character's turn. The other two options available are to consider combat rounds as absolute units of time that measure how long combat has lasted (Ace's theory) or as movable spans of time that are relative to whatever event you want to look at (my theory). These claims need to be verified. Regardless, it's not because something is popular that it's necessarily right. As I've stated earlier, Gallileo was excommunicated by the church for claiming that the sun didn't revolve around the Earth (it was the other way around). This claim was not popular at the time, but we now know that it was valid. If everything amounted to a popular vote, then we should simply run polls on rules counseling and be done with it.Where is that at. Please post link where it says the definition. Please refrain from statement with no proof. If that is your interpretation then post what you are getting that from first then your interpretation. Note: As stated before their is no difference in My "theory'' and Boringinfoguy's. I just give them back when the PC would get them back and Boringinfoguy gives it back when the players would get them back. Time wise there is no difference in the two.
Marcus Majarra 12-11-07, 12:56 AM	The definition is in the glossary itself: Turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. A point, by definition, has no mathematical width, unlike an interval. A point is only defined by location. As such, a point in a round represents a location in time. The only temporal reference that has no length is an instant or a moment. This is why turns are instantaneous. This is further corroborated by other facts: 1) An infinity of turns can occur within a single round. The only way you can fit an infinity of turns within any span of time is by considering that turns have a duration of 0 seconds. You can resolve this with a simple limit function. 2) Turns are sequential and no two turns take place at the same time. This is covered in the initiative rules. No two participants in combat have the same initiative, which means that no two turns occur simultaneously. 3) Turns are finite. When you're done performing your entire round's worth of actions, your turn is finished. At this point, another creature's turn is resolved.
BoringInfoGuy 12-11-07, 02:25 AM	The definition is in the glossary itself: Turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. A point, by definition, has no mathematical width, unlike an interval. A point is only defined by location. As such, a point in a round represents a location in time. The only temporal reference that has no length is an instant or a moment. A point, by definition, means one of many possible definitions. Seriously, grab a dictionary and look up the word. Grabbing my Webster's, I came across your defintion: Point: 3 an element in geometry having definite position, but no size, shape or extension [a line between two points] If we were talking geometry, you would be correct. But we are not. If we look for a definition of point that is actually matches the context of the sentence, we get this: Point: 5 A particular time; exact moment [the point of death] We can see which definition fits by substituting the definition for the word in the sentence. Turn: The element in geometry having definite position, but no size, shape or extension in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances Doesn't seem to fit. Turn: The particular time; exact moment in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. Now we've got it.
Ace_of_time 12-11-07, 08:33 AM	The definition is in the glossary itself: Turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. A point, by definition, has no mathematical width, unlike an interval. A point is only defined by location. As such, a point in a round represents a location in time. The only temporal reference that has no length is an instant or a moment. This is why turns are instantaneous. This is further corroborated by other facts: 1) An infinity of turns can occur within a single round. The only way you can fit an infinity of turns within any span of time is by considering that turns have a duration of 0 seconds. You can resolve this with a simple limit function. 2) Turns are sequential and no two turns take place at the same time. This is covered in the initiative rules. No two participants in combat have the same initiative, which means that no two turns occur simultaneously. 3) Turns are finite. When you're done performing your entire round's worth of actions, your turn is finished. At this point, another creature's turn is resolved. Well here you go then. Main Entry: 1point Pronunciation: \ˈpȯint\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, partly from Anglo-French, prick, dot, moment, from Latin punctum, from neuter of punctus, past participle of pungere to prick; partly from Anglo-French pointe sharp end, from Vulgar Latin *puncta, from Latin, feminine of punctus, past participle — more at pungent Date: 13th century 1 a (1): an individual detail : item (2): a distinguishing detail <tact is one of her strong points> b: the most important essential in a discussion or matter <missed the whole point of the joke> c: cogency 2obsolete : physical condition 3: an end or object to be achieved : purpose <did not see what point there was in continuing the discussion> 4 a: a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates b (1): a narrowly localized place having a precisely indicated position <walked to a point 50 yards north of the building> (2): a particular place : locality <have come from distant points> c (1): an exact moment <at this point I was interrupted> (2): a time interval immediately before something indicated : verge <at the point of death> d (1): a particular step, stage, or degree in development <had reached the point where nothing seemed to matter anymore> (2): a definite position in a scale 5 a: the terminal usually sharp or narrowly rounded part of something : tip b: a weapon or tool having such a part and used for stabbing or piercing: as (1): arrowhead (2): spearhead c (1): the contact or discharge extremity of an electric device (as a spark plug or distributor) (2)chiefly British : an electric outlet 6 a: a projecting usually tapering piece of land or a sharp prominence b (1): the tip of a projecting body part (2): tine 2 (3)plural : the extremities or markings of the extremities of an animal especially when of a color differing from the rest of the body c: a railroad switch d: the head of the bow of a stringed instrument 7: a short musical phrase; especially : a phrase in contrapuntal music 8 a: a very small mark b (1): punctuation mark; especially : period 5a (1) (2): decimal point 9: a lace for tying parts of a garment together used especially in the 16th and 17th centuries 10: one of usually 11 divisions of a heraldic shield that determines the position of a charge 11 a: one of the 32 equidistant spots of a compass card for indicating direction b: the difference of 11 degrees between two such successive points c: a direction indicated by a compass point <from all points of the compass> 12: a small detachment ahead of an advance guard or behind a rear guard 13 a: needlepoint 1 b: lace made with a bobbin 14: one of 12 spaces marked off on each side of a backgammon board 15: a unit of measurement: as a (1): a unit of counting in the scoring of a game or contest (2): a unit used in evaluating the strength of a bridge hand b: a unit of academic credit c (1): a unit used in quoting prices (as of stocks, bonds, and commodities) (2)plural : a percentage of the face value of a loan often added as a placement fee or service charge (3): a percentage of the profits of a business venture (as a motion-picture production) d: a unit of about inch used especially to measure the size of type 16: the action of pointing: as a: the rigidly intent attitude of a hunting dog marking game for a gunner b: the action in dancing of extending one leg and arching the foot so that only the tips of the toes touch the floor 17: a position of a player in various games (as lacrosse); also : the player of such a position 18: a number thrown on the first roll of the dice in craps which the player attempts to repeat before throwing a seven — compare missout, pass 13 19: credit accruing from creating a good impression <scored points for hard work> — beside the point : irrelevant — in point of : with regard to : in the matter of <in point of law> <in point of fact> — to the point : relevant, pertinent <a suggestion that was to the point> The bolded is the one as was thinking they meant. Which one of these definition say that it has no mathematical width. Point in that referance is a noun. It is talking about a place in each round. I have posted before on this. The RAWS say that you are assumed to use actions that take the whole round. And a combat round, BY definition, are 6 seconds long. You mean that you have been argueing on this POINT this whole thread and this is your reason.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Marcus Majarra 12-11-07, 01:18 PM	Turn: The particular time; exact moment in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. Now we've got it. You do realize that you're still defining a turn as a moment. Moments are, by definition, instantaneous. And yes, I looked it up. The bolded is the one as was thinking they meant. Incorrect. For that defintion to be valid, you should be able to semantically substitute the word point for the word verge in the glossary definition of the turn. This is, of course, a semantic incoherence. It is talking about a place in each round. And places, by definition, are only caracterized by location, not area. A place in a round doesn't last any time at all. It is merely a moment, which makes it instantaneous. EDIT: As a tangent, mostly for BoringInfoGuy, it's quite logical to consider time as a geometric entity with one dimension. We can easily represent time in the same fashion as we represent a distance or any other linear, localizable, and measurable concept of reality. Just like a point in space represents a location, a point in time represents a moment. Neither has any sort of dimension: a location doesn't have a length (or, if we take this 3D, width, height, or depth) and a moment doesn't have a duration. In order to give them any kind of dimension, you need to look at a vector of space or time. A spatial vector can represent a length, an area or a volume, whereas a temporal vector is a period.
Sinis 12-11-07, 02:06 PM	Which one of these definition say that it has no mathematical width. 4 a: a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates b (1): a narrowly localized place having a precisely indicated position <walked to a point 50 yards north of the building> That one.
Ace_of_time 12-11-07, 03:18 PM	You do realize that you're still defining a turn as a moment. Moments are, by definition, instantaneous. And yes, I looked it up. Incorrect. For that defintion to be valid, you should be able to semantically substitute the word point for the word verge in the glossary definition of the turn. This is, of course, a semantic incoherence. And places, by definition, are only caracterized by location, not area. A place in a round doesn't last any time at all. It is merely a moment, which makes it instantaneous. EDIT: As a tangent, mostly for BoringInfoGuy, it's quite logical to consider time as a geometric entity with one dimension. We can easily represent time in the same fashion as we represent a distance or any other linear, localizable, and measurable concept of reality. Just like a point in space represents a location, a point in time represents a moment. Neither has any sort of dimension: a location doesn't have a length (or, if we take this 3D, width, height, or depth) and a moment doesn't have a duration. In order to give them any kind of dimension, you need to look at a vector of space or time. A spatial vector can represent a length, an area or a volume, whereas a temporal vector is a period.I Don't feel the need to argue with you any more. It is clear to me what this is. Turn: The time interval in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. Main Entry: in·ter·val Pronunciation: \ˈin-tər-vəl\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English intervalle, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French entreval, from Latin intervallum space between ramparts, interval, from inter- + vallum rampart — more at wall Date: 14th century 1 a: a space of time between events or states bBritish : intermission 2 a: a space between objects, units, points, or states b: difference in pitch between tones 3: a set of real numbers between two numbers either including or excluding one or both of them 4: one of a series of fast-paced exercises interspersed with slower ones or brief rests for training (as of an athlete) — in·ter·val·lic \ˌin-tər-ˈva-lik\ adjective
Ace_of_time 12-11-07, 03:19 PM	That one.So you believe that that is the right one for the way that word is used?
Sinis 12-12-07, 10:01 AM	So you believe that that is the right one for the way that word is used? Absolutely. "At that point (that has no dimension in time, it's instantaneous), I took my action." I don't see how that's not intuitive. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. I just can't see where you get the idea that actions are taken simultaneously. Moreover, because participants in battle never, ever take their action at the same time, (i.e. two bowmen don't shoot at the same time and kill each other), it cannot be the case that participants in battle act simultaneously. If it says "more or less simultaneously" in the SRD, and every bit of evidence directs you to "we're not acting simultaneously", you really have to consider that you really are in the "less" part of "more or less" and that you are not acting simultaneously. I cannot make it any more clear than that. I'm sure the other posters in this thread (and even this entire forum) agree with me that your view on how actions are taken simultaneously in a round is completely wrong.
Ace_of_time 12-12-07, 05:06 PM	Maybe because it says it in the DMG on page 24. Look it up your self.:headexplo Even one of the sages who has been working on the rules a long time says it is so. And I'm supposed to ignore all that because some people on are confusing the point at which a person starts their turn to be a persons turn. It is just a definition not the RAWs. Inits are only used during combat rounds. (see page 24) A combat round is last 6 seconds. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. Which means that they take 6 seconds worth of actions. But no lets just assume the word point is the same thing as a turn. I'm glad my PC can stop time just because the designers decided to use the word point instead of some other word to let a person know that is where their actions start at. Action: A characters activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time require atleast): full round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions. Round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant my take atleast one actions every round. End of round: The point in a combat round when all participants have completed their allowed actions. End of round occures when no one else involved in the combat has an action pending for that round Now since a round by the definition in the PHB is "A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat." and since "Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to." That mean that Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per 6-second unit of game time . You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.
Sinis 12-12-07, 05:49 PM	Maybe because it says it in the DMG on page 24. Look it up your self. Why do you conveniently ignore the text right after? "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character." I think that pretty clearly states that players do not really act simultaneously, and that the preceding paragraph is just there to show that participants in combat are conceptually acting at the same moment, that is to say, a participant doesn't take his/her action at lightning speed and then wait around for 6 seconds... conceptually. But no lets just assume the word point is the same thing as a turn. I'm glad my PC can stop time just because the designers decided to use the word point instead of some other word to let a person know that is where their actions start at. I think what you're saying here actively demonstrates that you don't understand what the rest of us mean.
weasel0 12-12-07, 05:51 PM	But that paragraph is refering to the player and his turn, not the character in the game world. In the game world the acts are roughly simltaneous. In the real world, the DM can only resolve one players actions at a time.
Sinis 12-12-07, 06:13 PM	But that paragraph is refering to the player and his turn, not the character in the game world. In the game world the acts are roughly simltaneous. In the real world, the DM can only resolve one players actions at a time. Sure, fine. Okay, let's look at an example. Mialee and Tordek encounter a troop of orcs. All the participants roll initiative. Tordek is at the top of the initiative. Tordek delays. Mialee is next. Mialee casts fireball on the orcs in such a way that the edge of the area of fireball's effects is the 5-foot square in front of Tordek. One orc survives. Tordek opts to take his action now, and charges the remaining badly burned orc. If participants had their actions take place simultaneously, the following would be true: 1. The orcs would have started moving towards Tordek and Mialee (assuming their action was going to be to move towards the dwarf/elf duo). 2. Tordek would have been charging an orc as Mialee was casting fireball (and consequently would have been hit by it). After all, their actions must happen simultaneously, right? Well, frankly, this "simultaneous" bunk seems pretty poorly thought out, if players are capable of delaying, that is doing nothing for part of a round. I think the delay function, and actions done in initiative order pretty clearly illustrates that no one is doing anything simultaneously.
Ace_of_time 12-12-07, 07:06 PM	Fireball Evocation [Fire] Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: 20-ft.-radius spread Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure. You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely. The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur. I love when people help me prove my point. That spell is a Instantaneous effect. It takes no time for the effect of that spell to cause damage. so the spell would deals the damage almost the second after it was cast. See when something is Instantaneous the books say so. "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character." Now your not suggesting that it is ok for the DM to meta game with the rules but not the players are you. I mean the book CLEARLY states that it does happen at the same time and you come back with It added in another part just to say it doesn't. Now how would that make sense. That part is refering to the players deciding what happens at the gaming table. As I said already the init count and my way are the same.
Marcus Majarra 12-12-07, 07:26 PM	I mean the book CLEARLY states that it does happen at the same time and you come back with It added in another part just to say it doesn't. Actually, the book states it happens at MORE OR LESS the same time. I fail to see how this is clear or even precise. Turn resolution, however, is both clear and precise in that it is sequential and non-simultaneous. See when something is Instantaneous the books say so. By referring to turns as points in a round, they're also saying that turns are instantaneous too. It needs not be explicited, because a point in time, by definition, has no length. Saying that a point in time has a length is the same as saying that a point in space has an area: it's a fallacy. But that paragraph is refering to the player and his turn, not the character in the game world. In the game world the acts are roughly simltaneous. In the real world, the DM can only resolve one players actions at a time. You need to stop and think as to what it means to be more or less simultaneous. Even in the game world, actions are sequential. They take place in a certain order and come into existence in a certain order. If this weren't the case, it would be impossible for a fighter to perform a full attack against his target, when his target's next action is to move away from the fighter, since the fighter isn't following up on the move. Simply put, the simultaneous view on actions is a perspective recommended to simply accomodate for an infinity of acting creatures in a single combat round. It's an abstraction of what occurs inside the smallest unit of D&D time: the round. And even if the game world argument were to hold, if you're holding true to a dichotomy between the in-game elements and the rule elements, then it stands to reason that the refreshment of AoOs should remain with the rule elements.
Ace_of_time 12-12-07, 08:14 PM	No, If you read the DMG it say, "AT THE SAME TIME" Page 24. Look it up before posting back if you like. Since the DM controls the game it trumps the PHB. Mostly the PHB is for players and the DMG is for DMs. Funny how that works.:rolleyes: Action: A characters activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time require atleast): full round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions. Round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant my take atleast one actions every round. End of round: The point in a combat round when all participants have completed their allowed actions. End of round occures when no one else involved in the combat has an action pending for that round And so we are clear here. Turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances. It doesn't say that the turn is a point is says that a turn is the point in the round, AKA spot, at which you take your action/s. and if we look at the word action in there it says, "Action: A characters activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time require atleast): full round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions." Funny how it calls it instant and says it require an ammount of time to perform.
Marcus Majarra 12-12-07, 10:51 PM	No, If you read the DMG it say, "AT THE SAME TIME" Page 24. Look it up before posting back if you like. Since the DM controls the game it trumps the PHB. Mostly the PHB is for players and the DMG is for DMs. Funny how that works. Three things: 1) The DM trumps everything: books, players, rules, etc. This is the foundation of Rule Zero and has nothing to do with this discussion. 2) The PHB is undisputably the primary source on Combat rules. As such, the PHB trumps the DMG on combat rules. If you want proof of this: just look at the SRD. The entire combat section is copied straight off the PHB. The DMG merely provides complementary information on the subject. 3) You should avoid using a section of the DMG that directly contradicts your own claims. Here's the entire text from the Simultaneous Activity section of the DMG: When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round. For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time. Is there any reason why you're disregarding the second paragraph here? This paragraph illustrates how combat rounds are played out sequentially. In fact, the third paragraph shows how you introduce an ad-hoc ruling to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity. This simultaneity is, as Sinis pointed out earlier, conceptual. The reality of the game's actions is that they do not take place at the same time. Consider the following example: A cleric and a fighter are tackling a minotaur. Let's pick any combat round, and assume that the initiative order is fighter, then minotaur, then cleric. For this combat round to be complete, all three have to perform their actions. Thus, the fighter goes first and performs his actions. The minotaur goes next, and attacks the fighter, bringing him down to exactly -10 hp. The fighter is dead. The cleric, aware that the fighter was weakened, was determined to cast a cure spell on the fighter to guarantee his survival. The thing is: any cure spell would've made sure the fighter survived the minotaur's attack (since even cure minor wounds would've left the fighter at -9). However, since the fighter is dead at this point, the spell will have no effect. This example shows how the simultaneous activity idea breaks down when actions are resolved sequentially. If everything were to happen at the same time, there's no reason to believe the cure spell didn't kick in while the fighter was still alive, since the minotaur's attack and the cleric's spell were to take place simultaneously. Another reason while the simultaneous activity idea breaks down when you play out combat is when effects with durations come into play. How is it that an effect that lasts 5 rounds, starting on initiative 15, ends on this same initiative 5 rounds later? If everything is occurring at the same time, there's no reason to tie it to a specific initiative, since these would be meaningless in a simultaneous activity model. I'm sorry Ace, but your theory fails, as it is simply based on how you visualize combat going on, whereas this discussion has to do with how combat is played out. Funny how it calls it instant and says it require an ammount of time to perform. Fine, then. How much time does each of the action types require? Can you measure this, with RAW information? I very much doubt so, and I'll provide you examples as to why: 1) Let's say that a full-round action requires nearly 6 seconds to complete. This is a fair estimate, correct? Let's also assume that a move action requires a little less than 3 seconds to complete. This is also fair, since you can fit two of these within a round's worth of actions. And now, consider the following situation: two characters are within melee range of one another. The first to act in the initiative sequence decides to perform a melee full attack on the other. His opponent, decides to simply make a standard attack and then move away. If the full attack, being a full-round action, requires nearly 6 seconds to complete, how can the first character hope to complete it, when during the last 3 seconds of his action, his opponent moves out of range? If combat activity is genuinely simultaneous, this is impossible. And yet, in combat, it's quite possible to make a melee full attack against an opponent, only to have him move away on his action, all within the same round. 2) What about swift actions? Swift actions are described as requiring a very small amount of time. How small is this amount of time? Is it smaller than a move action? It seems so. After all, creatures can make their usual standard + move actions and still have time to perform a swift action. Obviously, the time required to perform swift actions must be similar to that of free actions. In fact, the SRD goes even as far as to state that swift actions are like free actions. But if this is the case, if swift actions require less time to perform than standard or move actions, why is it that you can only perform one per turn? If actions truly were units of time, you should be able to combine them in any way that amounts to the time you're alloted every round. These are only two examples of how your theory fails even further. Actions requiring time represents how actions are imagined as taking place. As far as how combat is played out, actions have nothing to do with time, and everything to do with effort.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 06:54 AM	This Quote "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round." Is talking about what happen out of game at the table. It is not talking about what happens in the game. It is say for the DM to stay sane he should play out the round using init rules so that it will help figure out what happen's during those in game 6 seconds of combat. "In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time." It doesn't matter how the turns happen at the table because IN GAME they happen at the same time. Now for your examples: A cleric and a fighter are tackling a minotaur. Let's pick any combat round, and assume that the initiative order is fighter, then minotaur, then cleric. For this combat round to be complete, all three have to perform their actions. Thus, the fighter goes first and performs his actions. The minotaur goes next, and attacks the fighter, bringing him down to exactly -10 hp. The fighter is dead. The cleric, aware that the fighter was weakened, was determined to cast a cure spell on the fighter to guarantee his survival. The thing is: any cure spell would've made sure the fighter survived the minotaur's attack (since even cure minor wounds would've left the fighter at -9). However, since the fighter is dead at this point, the spell will have no effect.This would never really happens but what the heck. Assuming the Fighter is at full HP at the start the cleric would being healling the damage till next round since his turn happen at the same time as the others there would be no way to know about that damage till the action happened and by then he would be dead. Note that some DM'sd allow healing damage on the rounds it happens but you aren't really supposed to till the round after. But it sounds like your saying he was down on HP before the combat round started in which case the cleric could heal the damage from the other rounds at the same time he is taking damage. A DM could rule that the fighter was healed as he was dealt damage and if the healed ammount was put him under the -10 mark could still live. Ofcourse that would depend on the spell, damage dealt and whether the mintaurs AoO hit the caster and he made his con check. Next: two characters are within melee range of one another. The first to act in the initiative sequence decides to perform a melee full attack on the other. His opponent, decides to simply make a standard attack and then move away. If the full attack, being a full-round action, requires nearly 6 seconds to complete, how can the first character hope to complete it, when during the last 3 seconds of his action, his opponent moves out of range? Damage is dealt before he/she moves and then the 1st person gets AoO for the person moving out of the threated squares. Attacks take very little ammount of time the act of full attack takes more time then stanard or move actions so is there for a full round action. His attacks happen at the same time as the others one attack and through part of his move action. He would still get his AoO too. Now I'm sorry I don't work for the customer service. If you have a problem with the way the rules say a round works maybe you should bring that to there attention instead of arguing whether a turn is the same thing as the actions taken. All I know is how the books say they work. And no the PHB never trumps the DMG although they are supposed to be used together the PHB is more for players.
Sinis 12-13-07, 10:20 AM	I love when people help me prove my point. That spell is a Instantaneous effect. It takes no time for the effect of that spell to cause damage. so the spell would deals the damage almost the second after it was cast. See when something is Instantaneous the books say so. I can't help but notice that you ignored the cast time in fireball. As Marcus asked, just how long is a standard action? Mialee after all, is taking her action simultaneously with Tordek. Is it the amount of time that it takes Tordek to move at least 5 feet in my example? Do you have any SRD information to back this up? Does he not get hit with the fireball then? You really need to stop and think about this. If the game were truly simultaneous, it would be possible for two archers to fire their bows simultaneously and so kill each other, simultaneously. Yet in the game system, not only is this impossible, but there are rules in place to create a sequence in a situation where things might be simultaneous (i.e. tie-breaking in initiative). This would never really happens but what the heck. Assuming the Fighter is at full HP at the start the cleric would being healling the damage till next round since his turn happen at the same time as the others there would be no way to know about that damage till the action happened and by then he would be dead. Note that some DM'sd allow healing damage on the rounds it happens but you aren't really supposed to till the round after. But it sounds like your saying he was down on HP before the combat round started in which case the cleric could heal the damage from the other rounds at the same time he is taking damage. A DM could rule that the fighter was healed as he was dealt damage and if the healed ammount was put him under the -10 mark could still live. Ofcourse that would depend on the spell, damage dealt and whether the mintaurs AoO hit the caster and he made his con check. Now you're just making stuff up. That's not in the RAW, that's your ad hoc (read: COMPLETELY ARBITRARY) ruling. By the RAW, the fighter dies in Marcus' example, and your counter-argument is completely without basis. If things really happened simultaneously by the RAW, you wouldn't have to make an arbitrary ruling in favour of the fighter, he would simply survive by the RAW and simultaneous occurance. But he doesn't, and it has everything to do with the fact that things do not occur simultaneously, no matter how badly you want them to.
the_rooster 12-13-07, 11:02 AM	Improved Initiative and initiative bonuses trump the idea of simultaneous actions, as well. Or are you telling me I used my 1st level feat on improved initiative so I could simply declare my actions first? That I'm essentially wasting a feat to talk before the other players at my table? If everything happens simultaneously, initiative order is strictly who gets to speak and roll first, and has no bearing on the ACTUAL outcome of the game (even has a negative aspect because now everyone else can change their mind based on my choices...so I get the disadvantage of not seeing what they do before I make my action). Yet I can take feats (and there are class features) that let me talk first...because that's so worth a feat and way better than sneak attack. The same is true of the idea that you're flatfooted until your initiative order. If everything happens simultaeneously, then why is one guy flatfooted while the other runs 20 feet and swings his weapon? You may not like it, but the rules are clearly designed around the idea that things happen very quickly, not simultaneously.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 11:05 AM	Assuming the Fighter is at full HP at the start the cleric would being healling the damage till next round since his turn happen at the same time as the others there would be no way to know about that damage till the action happened and by then he would be dead. I said he would be dead, But that I could see how some one might rule the other way. I'm confused now Are you asking what the rules say or how I would handle the fire ball. In the example be 5' outside the radiusI would say that yes it would affect him. Don't know how the rules would rule that. All I can tell you is what they say. I didn't write them. If your asking why they are that way or saying it can't be that way for 200 examples that you can come up with as to why you think it doesn't that way then you will have to ask WotC. All I know is that is how the rules say it works. I don't see how it would work any different then the trap esample in the DMG. Charging is a full round action and casting is a standard one. He would have to move 10' in order the charge anyone so if he was charge the people in the area where the fire ball went off the yes it got him too. Most spell caster don't use those types of spells that close to their ally/ies.
Marcus Majarra 12-13-07, 11:07 AM	And no the PHB never trumps the DMG although they are supposed to be used together the PHB is more for players. You should really check out errata rules. When two rule sources disagrees, the primary source on the subject takes precedence. If you'll read below, you'll notice the PHB is the primary source on how the game is played, which is why it trumps the DMG on this matter. When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. As you said, you are not CustServ. If you're going to make a bold claim such as "the DMG always trumps the PHB," you should back it up with evidence. It doesn't matter how the turns happen at the table because IN GAME they happen at the same time. How turns happens does matter, since this is how they are played out. It might not matter when you try to visualize a round of combat as a whole, but it does matter significantly when you play them out. And since this discussion is all about how you play out AoOs, you should focus more on how combat is played out, as opposed as to how combat seems to an onlooker. Damage is dealt before he/she moves and then the 1st person gets AoO for the person moving out of the threated squares. Attacks take very little ammount of time the act of full attack takes more time then stanard or move actions so is there for a full round action. His attacks happen at the same time as the others one attack and through part of his move action. He would still get his AoO too. That example wasn't about AoOs. If my melee full attack requires 6 seconds and the opponent is moving away during the last 3 seconds of my melee full attack, what makes it possible for me to continue hitting my opponent, despite the fact that for nealy half of my action, he's beyond range?
Marcus Majarra 12-13-07, 11:09 AM	You may not like it, but the rules are clearly designed around the idea that things happen very quickly, not simultaneously. Good calls.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 11:18 AM	Improved Initiative and initiative bonuses trump the idea of simultaneous actions, as well. Or are you telling me I used my 1st level feat on improved initiative so I could simply declare my actions first? That I'm essentially wasting a feat to talk before the other players at my table? If everything happens simultaneously, initiative order is strictly who gets to speak and roll first, and has no bearing on the ACTUAL outcome of the game (even has a negative aspect because now everyone else can change their mind based on my choices...so I get the disadvantage of not seeing what they do before I make my action). Yet I can take feats (and there are class features) that let me talk first...because that's so worth a feat and way better than sneak attack. The same is true of the idea that you're flatfooted until your initiative order. If everything happens simultaeneously, then why is one guy flatfooted while the other runs 20 feet and swings his weapon? You may not like it, but the rules are clearly designed around the idea that things happen very quickly, not simultaneously. Yes, I guess you could look at it that way. Write them and have them fix it if you want or house rule it if the group argees to but that is what the DMG says. On a side note: IMPROVED INITIATIVE [GENERAL] Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on initiative checks. Special: A fighter may select Improved Initiative as one of his fighter bonus feats. And the PHB saysInitiative check: A check used to determine a creature's place in the initiative order for a combat. Doesn't say it effects the 6 second round only what order you take at the table.
the_rooster 12-13-07, 11:26 AM	Yes, I guess you could look at it that way. Write them and have them fix it if you want or house rule it if the group argees to but that is what the DMG says. Translation: Yeah you're right...but I don't want to lose so I'm going to be unreasonable. And the PHB says Doesn't say it effects the 6 second round only what order you take at the table. So you ACTUALLY think they put a feat in the rules to let you talk first? Really? You seem more intelligent than that. You've gone from arguing a point to refusing to admit that you're wrong now. Because only a complete moron, or someone too stubborn to admit he is wrong would assume they made a feat strictly for who gets to talk first. And you STILL never dealt with why I'm flatfooted until my initiative order.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 12:07 PM	So all I'm doing is say what the rules say and I'm wrong?:confused: :confused: :confused: Or are you saying every rule in the Book makes enough sense that no one should need house rules. If the Player want his Pc tio wait till after the spell was cast to move then he/ she should have used as ready action. READY The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so). Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action. You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round. Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result). Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster’s spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane. A spellcaster can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, but it doesn’t always work. Readying a Weapon against a Charge: You can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character. I'm I supposed to believe that I can ready a weapon against a charge and then the creature charging see me ready it and goes ahead and charges me anyway. How does that make more sense? I'm the bad guy he because the RAW say every action in game happen at the same time and you all don't think that goes well with initiative rules?
the_rooster 12-13-07, 12:40 PM	So all I'm doing is say what the rules say and I'm wrong?:confused: :confused: :confused: I'm I supposed to believe that I can ready a weapon against a charge and then the creature charging see me ready it and goes ahead and charges me anyway. How does that make more sense? I'm the bad guy he because the RAW say every action in game happen at the same time and you all don't think that goes well with initiative rules? You're not the bad guy, man. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but someone is wrong here and common sense as well as piles of rules text says your view is wrong. You're taking ONE line from the DMG in a section meant to help DMs understand the game and how the rules mesh with reality a little better and then house ruling a ton of other things to make it fit into that one line, instead of interpreting it correctly. I checked that paragraph in the DMG and your interpretation is flawed because you can't do things simultaneously in the way you're implying it...in 6 seconds. It's rationally impossible. You're assuming simultaneous means at the EXACT same moment in time. But the word simultaneous leaves room for "within the same 6 second frame of time". For example: In game terms: Tordek rolls a 12 initiative Grokk the orc rolls an 8 Tordek swings, hits and kills Grokk on his turn. In terms of acting simultaneously: Tordek engages Grokk in combat. They are both fighting and actively trying to hurt the other one. Tordek gets the drop on Grokk and swings, chopping off Grokk's head even as the orc's body tenses up for his own attack. headless, Grokk falls dead (before his initiative comes up). This occurs within 6 seconds, and both are "more or less acting simultaneously." This not only satisifes the simultaneous clause, but ALSO satisfies the RAW concerning initiative, being flatfooted, etc. I don't see why that's so difficult to accept or understand.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 01:08 PM	But you also CAN't act instantaneously. Are you saying it makes more sense that every actions on your turn takes no time what so ever? I've been on here for like 4 pages. That quote isn't just the only one that says. I've posted a bunch of others that say it. How is telling the DM the opposite of what really happen help him unstand the rules? What is the big deal about house ruling it? You take out the 6 second deal and the actions at the same time and house rule that everything happens in init order. That way when they refresh AoOs on init counts it will not be the same as refreashing them every 6 seconds of combat. That is how this started. someone said that AoO refreashed on Init count, I said it refreashed every 6 seconds of combat but that there really wasn't a difference because they would all get AoO back at about the same time in the In Game world. That when they said every action in combat happens instantaneously which clearly isn't so.simultaneous Main Entry: si·mul·ta·neous Pronunciation: \ˌsī-məl-ˈtā-nē-əs, -nyəs also ˌsi-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin simul at the same time + English -taneous (as in instantaneous) — more at same Date: circa 1660 1 : existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident 2 : satisfied by the same values of the variables <simultaneous equations>
the_rooster 12-13-07, 01:21 PM	But you also CAN't act instantaneously. Are you saying it makes more sense that every actions on your turn takes no time what so ever? No. My example didn't imply that at all. But the initiative roll DOES imply that some people act quicker than others. I've been on here for like 4 pages. That quote isn't just the only one that says. I've posted a bunch of others that say it. How is telling the DM the opposite of what really happen help him unstand the rules? Again: your view of the word simultaneous is too narrow. I was saying that in the quoted parts saying "more or less simultaneously" the authors only meant "withint the same 6 second time frame. That's not contradictory in any way...if anything, it meshes better with the RAW. What is the big deal about house ruling it? There isn't a big deal about it. But you were trying to insist that it wasn't a house rule, but RAW, which it clearly is not. You take out the 6 second deal and the actions at the same time and house rule that everything happens in init order. That way when they refresh AoOs on init counts it will not be the same as refreashing them every 6 seconds of combat. That is how this started. someone said that AoO refreashed on Init count, I said it refreashed every 6 seconds of combat but that there really wasn't a difference because they would all get AoO back at about the same time in the In Game world. That when they said every action in combat happens instantaneously which clearly isn't so. The bolded part shows my point. You're house-ruling, then calling it the RAW. That's incorrect. House rule all you want, but don't try to convince us that the way you (mis)interpret one sentence is the RAW. And for the record, your AoOs reset on YOUR intiative order. This precedent is everywhere. Spell durations end on your initiative. Being nauseated ends on the initiative number that you were nauseated on. And the "you can't make AoOs when you're flatfooted" (i.e. before your initiative) rule prevents first round abuse of it. If that's too complex for someone to keep track of, then D&D isn't their game.
Sinis 12-13-07, 01:40 PM	Double post.
Sinis 12-13-07, 01:43 PM	Assuming the Fighter is at full HP at the start the cleric would being healling the damage till next round since his turn happen at the same time as the others there would be no way to know about that damage till the action happened and by then he would be dead. I said he would be dead, But that I could see how some one might rule the other way. No, when you've reduced something to -10 health, they're dead and beyond regular old healing. There's no exceptions to this, and arbitrarily "ruling" it otherwise is clearly going against the RAW. I'm confused now Are you asking what the rules say or how I would handle the fire ball. In the example be 5' outside the radiusI would say that yes it would affect him. There, you're making a "ruling" again, against the RAW. Just as you cited Fireball having an instantaneous effect earlier, I can point out that it has a fixed radius, and only affects the things inside that radius. You're again arbitrarily ruling against the RAW. Do not multiply entities needlessly. Often shown as: The simplest solution is often the correct one. Look, in the examples everyone has shown, you arbitrarily rule against the RAW so that it fits the simultaneous action schema. You're breaking some rules to keep the integrity of one (and whether that one is a rule is debatable). Yet, you continuously say that your position is entirely based on the RAW. So all I'm doing is say what the rules say and I'm wrong? You're going through a lot of effort to show that actions simultaneously happen in a round, arbitrarily against the RAW increasing the area of effect of fireball, In the example be 5' outside the radiusI would say that yes it would affect him. ...arbitrarily against the RAW saying that it's possible a person reduced to -10 hit points isn't dead... I said he would be dead, But that I could see how some one might rule the other way. Don't you think that this is an awful lot of rule-breaking so that you can follow the "rule" of simultaneous action? Does it occur to you that you might just be wrong, and that simultaneous action is supposed to be a conceptual schema?
BobbyMac 12-13-07, 01:57 PM	Somebody designing Dnd 3e knew quantum theory. quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently. Replace physical quantity with time and you can define a 6 second round as a quantum with actions (1 round, standard, etc.) being quarks It looks like the 6 second round quantum is a superpostion of states that is resolvable by parameterization or IOW by rolling for initiative and sequentialy resolving actions. Basically Dnd attempts to model a real combat scenario with it's "more or less simultaneous actions" with the most sophisticated model of the universe that we know; breaking it down into sequential actions ala quantum theory. Anyway that's my theory and I'm sticking to it....
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 02:10 PM	No. My example didn't imply that at all. But the initiative roll DOES imply that some people act quicker than others. Again: your view of the word simultaneous is too narrow. I was saying that in the quoted parts saying "more or less simultaneously" the authors only meant "withint the same 6 second time frame. That's not contradictory in any way...if anything, it meshes better with the RAW. There isn't a big deal about it. But you were trying to insist that it wasn't a house rule, but RAW, which it clearly is not. The bolded part shows my point. You're house-ruling, then calling it the RAW. That's incorrect. House rule all you want, but don't try to convince us that the way you (mis)interpret one sentence is the RAW. And for the record, your AoOs reset on YOUR intiative order. This precedent is everywhere. Spell durations end on your initiative. Being nauseated ends on the initiative number that you were nauseated on. And the "you can't make AoOs when you're flatfooted" (i.e. before your initiative) rule prevents first round abuse of it. If that's too complex for someone to keep track of, then D&D isn't their game. I wasn't talking about you. If you look back a few pages you will see what I was talking about. I also never said they didn't act in init order I said their action happened at the same time. That doesn't mean that start acting at the same time just that there is not enough difference in the time that they start acting. Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. But As has been post by someone else they DON'T disargee on this. Simultaneous Activity When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round. For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time. The DMG does agree with the PHB about what happpens at the table but tells the DM that it all happens at the same time. It is not saying the PHB is wrong and I'm not ether. Ace, your quotes do not support your claims mechanically. Performing your round's worth of actions doesn't mean that your actions last 1 round. If I give you $250 every month and you get to spend your month's worth of earnings every 15th, your money spending doesn't last 1 month. Similarly, if at every initiative 15, you get one standard + one move action to spend right away, your actions last but an instant. And keep in mind: more or less simultaneously doesn't mean simultaneously. It can quite possibly mean that actions take place so closely from one another that they seem simultaneous. However, nowhere in the rules will you find anything that states that actions take place simultaneously. Even AoOs and readied actions, which have the potential to interrupt another action, take place before the action they're interrupting. Actually, it IS how the in-game action takes place. If all action were more simultaneous, you would resolve every round's full allotment of turns after everyone took his turn without any importance given to order. In reality, no two actions take place at the same time and order is important.
the_rooster 12-13-07, 02:21 PM	I also never said they didn't act in init order I said their action happened at the same time. Huh? how does someone both ACT in an order and ACT at the same time? It's impossible unless they have the same place in that order. And again, you're ignoring EVERYTHING on initiative and what it represents: people acting BEFORE others have a chance to act. Explain why I'm flatfooted before my initiative if I am technically moving at the EXACT same time as the guy before me. The DMG does agree with the PHB about what happpens at the table but tells the DM that it all happens at the same time. It is not saying the PHB is wrong and I'm not ether. At the same time DOES NOT have to mean the same instant. It can mean within this 6 second time frame and not the one before or after it. If it does, why bother with initiative at all? What is the purpose? Enlighten me.
BoringInfoGuy 12-13-07, 02:23 PM	Absolutely. "At that point (that has no dimension in time, it's instantaneous), I took my action." I don't see how that's not intuitive. I just can't see where you get the idea that actions are taken simultaneously. Moreover, because participants in battle never, ever take their action at the same time, (i.e. two bowmen don't shoot at the same time and kill each other), it cannot be the case that participants in battle act simultaneously. If it says "more or less simultaneously" in the SRD, and every bit of evidence directs you to "we're not acting simultaneously", you really have to consider that you really are in the "less" part of "more or less" and that you are not acting simultaneously. I cannot make it any more clear than that. I'm sure the other posters in this thread (and even this entire forum) agree with me that your view on how actions are taken simultaneously in a round is completely wrong. No, I believe that you are mistaken. And I already gave my case here, repeated below: If we look at the very beginning of the All About Initiative Article, then we see this: Player characters in the D&D game often go looking for trouble and, more often than not, they find it. When trouble arises, combat is sure to follow. The action during a round of battle in the D&D game takes place more or less simultaneously; however, resolving everyone's activities at the same time isn't too practical, so everybody must take turns. That's where initiative comes in. In game, turns do not exist. The characters in a battle do not take their actions and wait for everyone else to go before they take their next action. Turns are merely the method the Players and DM use to resolve combat. This is made more obvious when you look at Monster Initiative: Monster Initiative: Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. So how long does a turn last? To the characters, they don't exist. So they can't take any time. For the players, a turn lasts as long as it takes for the player to declare his actions for his turn, and resolve them. For the Player of a low level fighter, that can be as simple as declaring that he is attacking the orc again, rolling his attack roll, and (hopefully) rolling his damage. The DM will record any damage taken to the creature, declare if the orc was killed, and possibly describe the fighter's attack. Even with a simple action, it takes longer than 6 seconds to resolve a character's turn. Now, if the player was instead playing a high level wizard casting an area of effect spell that hits several creatures and requires a saving throw from each then his turn would take much longer. However long a player's turn lasts, the character's actions still take up to 6 seconds of time in the game world. This is made clear by this statement: Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, they can do in 1 round. There is a difference in what intuitively feels right, and what is right. Here's an example I've seen a few times. A 1st level character can make one attack per round. You resolve that attack with a single roll of a D20. Intuitively, that roll represents a single attack of your sword. But when you read up in the PHB, you find that the D20 roll instead represents if you managed to hit your opponent during a series of attacks. It is counter intuitive, but correct. As Pender Grass found in the FAQ and posted before he left, DnD handles combat in an abstract manner. The way the players and DM resolve combat does not exactly match what is meant to be happening for the characters. Now, you also stated that participants in a battle never, ever, go at the same time. Yet look in the PHB at the section on Monster Initiative (also quoted above). Typically, the participants that the DM controls are all acting on the same initiative. The DM is - on a single Turn - resolving the actions of multiple creatures. Are we then to conclude that every batch of creatures the DM controls is acting simultaneously?
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 02:28 PM	No, when you've reduced something to -10 health, they're dead and beyond regular old healing. There's no exceptions to this, and arbitrarily "ruling" it otherwise is clearly going against the RAW. There, you're making a "ruling" again, against the RAW. Just as you cited Fireball having an instantaneous effect earlier, I can point out that it has a fixed radius, and only affects the things inside that radius. You're again arbitrarily ruling against the RAW. Look, in the examples everyone has shown, you arbitrarily rule against the RAW so that it fits the simultaneous action schema. You're breaking some rules to keep the integrity of one (and whether that one is a rule is debatable). Yet, you continuously say that your position is entirely based on the RAW. You're going through a lot of effort to show that actions simultaneously happen in a round, arbitrarily against the RAW increasing the area of effect of fireball, ...arbitrarily against the RAW saying that it's possible a person reduced to -10 hit points isn't dead... Don't you think that this is an awful lot of rule-breaking so that you can follow the "rule" of simultaneous action? Does it occur to you that you might just be wrong, and that simultaneous action is supposed to be a conceptual schema?The example was to prove that The DMG was wrong. I assumed that example was using the "At the same time" thing as to why it couldn't be. If the dwarf was charge in at the same time the caster was casting that would put him atleast 10' from where he was and 5' into the spell area when the standard action was completed. If we looked at it the way he does. The spell doesn't even take a standard action because everything happens in a instant and no actions taken in combat take any ammount of time. Those were the choices I was given So I picked the first one because all the rules says actions require an ammount of time and effort. But feel free to post how the RAWs say it should have happened. Me, I always thought if a monster enters the spell area during the casting of the spell and doesn't leave before the spell is finished then it effects him to. But you are free to post where it says that even if you enter a spell area during casting and don't leave before it is cast you are not effected by that spell.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 02:37 PM	Huh? how does someone both ACT in an order and ACT at the same time? It's impossible unless they have the same place in that order. And again, you're ignoring EVERYTHING on initiative and what it represents: people acting BEFORE others have a chance to act. Explain why I'm flatfooted before my initiative if I am technically moving at the EXACT same time as the guy before me. At the same time DOES NOT have to mean the same instant. It can mean within this 6 second time frame and not the one before or after it. If it does, why bother with initiative at all? What is the purpose? Enlighten me.It doesn't say they start acting at the same time just that the actions taken happen at the same time. To me the only way that is possible is if they start acting at different times but just a few milliseconds off. For example: If three people in combat had 15, 12, 10. it would look like this. 0-1 10ms 15 would start acting 20ms 12 would start acting 30ms 10 would start acting 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 And then they would complete there actions in the same order and all the action would happen at the same time. As stated before on a bunch of my post from Rules of the game and in the DMG init counts are to help the DM decide what goes on in a combat roundwith out going insane. " Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result." That means that if everyone at the table playing D&D tried to act at the same time nobody would know what was happen so they come up with the init count to help decide what happened in those same 6 second of combat that everyone is assume to have taken their action in.
the_rooster 12-13-07, 02:46 PM	And then they would complete there actions in the same order and all the action would happen at the same time. You're just contradicting yourself now. "complete their actions in the same order" "at the same time" That's not rationally possible...UNLESS--as I've said over and over--you broaden your definition of simultaneous to mean "within a 6 second time frame." In which case, things don't happen EXACTLY at the same time, but close enough to be in very rapid succession.
Marcus Majarra 12-13-07, 05:00 PM	Typically, the participants that the DM controls are all acting on the same initiative. The DM is - on a single Turn - resolving the actions of multiple creatures. Are we then to conclude that every batch of creatures the DM controls is acting simultaneously? On this, you are mistaken. The monsters are not acting at the same time. Monster Initiative rules merely stipulate that the monsters take their turns on the same initiative count, and that the order in which the monsters act with respect to one another is negligible. Consider, for example, two orc warriors fighting a pair of party members. Both warriors will act on the same initiative, correct? Knowing that they were planning on ganging up on the same opponent, what happens if one of the warriors manages to take down the said opponent? If they were truly acting simultaneously, they would be both closing in to the same target and attacking at once. However, since the first warrior manages to take down the opponent, the second warrior can move against the other party member. If actions were simultaneous, the second warrior could have no foreknowledge of the downfall of the first party member and would still move against him. However, RAW doesn't go that way. In reality, monsters never act at the same time. They simply take their actions successively without having a non-monster interrupt them. The reason why changing the order between the monsters is relatively negligible is simply because any of them can opt to delay long enough to let another monster act without messing up the entire initiative sequence. And for the record, your AoOs reset on YOUR intiative order. This precedent is everywhere. Spell durations end on your initiative. Being nauseated ends on the initiative number that you were nauseated on. And the "you can't make AoOs when you're flatfooted" (i.e. before your initiative) rule prevents first round abuse of it. If that's too complex for someone to keep track of, then D&D isn't their game. This issue is still a matter of debate. Spell durations end on your initiative because they first take place on your initiative. The first round issue is incorrectly assigned since the lack of AoOs has nothing to do with the first turn and everything to do with the flat-footed condition, which is not exclusively detained by being associated witht the first turn. There is, however, precedent in that per period abilities require a cooldown of the period in question. For example, SLAs usable once per day require that a full day pass between uses. Since AoOs can be made once per round, it stands to reason that a full round pass between AoOs. This discussion, being the main topic here, is still debatable.
BoringInfoGuy 12-13-07, 06:41 PM	When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round. For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time. This is a great example, but one supporting Ace_of_Time's argument, not yours. 1st point: The characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. [QUOTE]When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. 2nd point: The players - as opposed to the characters - are acting in Turns. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. 3rd point: This is because it is impractical to resolve combat with each character acting simultaneously. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. 4th point: Since the way players resolve combat doesn't match the characters act, we can run into issues due to the discrepancy. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round. 5th point: DM's are shown the option to break with the player's turn system to better match what is happening with the characters For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. 6th point: This is due to the character needing to take the time to perform his actions, as opposed to it happening instantaneously. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 06:46 PM	You're just contradicting yourself now. "complete their actions in the same order" "at the same time" That's not rationally possible...UNLESS--as I've said over and over--you broaden your definition of simultaneous to mean "within a 6 second time frame." In which case, things don't happen EXACTLY at the same time, but close enough to be in very rapid succession.Sorry I meant End of their init. Rules of the game does in fact say more or less the same time. (which you can look back and see) Now if I get this wrong please someone tell me. I say that since the PHB say in the Glossary a round is 6 seconds of combat that they refreash every 6 seconds of combat. I also say that since Init is the start at the start of combat that there is no defference in every 6 seconds of combat (what happens in game) and on init counts (what happens at the table) because ether why it is really the same time in game any way. BoringInfoGuy: Thinks Like you I beleive do that it start over on init counts of the persons in combat. Marcus Majarra: Believes that since a person turn, in fact all their action/s for that round of combat happen instantly so the only real way to refresh AoOs is to time 6 second from the point at which you use the AoO. Sinis: I think they follow Marcus but I don't know if they have said one way or another yet. I can't remember. The rest have given up fighting on whether actions are instantaneous. Note: AoO are provoked all the way through the round if someone provokes one. You can only use one a round. CR feat allows you to use more per round and FF as well, So a person with CR feat could use a AoO on the first round of combat even if he/she hasn't went yet ( out of game). Some have said that CR feat grants this but the entry only says more uses and FF not that you can use it before your Init count.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 06:53 PM	[QUOTE=Marcus Majarra;14570426] When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember that all the PCs' and NPCs' actions are occurring simultaneously. For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying to cast a spell at the same time Lidda is moving in to make a sneak attack. However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round. For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10 feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation, the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be taking their actions during this same time. This is a great example, but one supporting Ace_of_Time's argument, not yours. 1st point: The characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. 2nd point: The players - as opposed to the characters - are acting in Turns. 3rd point: This is because it is impractical to resolve combat with each character acting simultaneously. 4th point: Since the way players resolve combat doesn't match the characters act, we can run into issues due to the discrepancy. 5th point: DM's are shown the option to break with the player's turn system to better match what is happening with the characters 6th point: This is due to the character needing to take the time to perform his actions, as opposed to it happening instantaneously. Don't laugh, ok. Marcus says that the middle part "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round." Means that the top and the bottoms are really saying no that they are not. Heck if I know how that is???:confused: :confused: Note:I think you said it better then did. I alway assume they will read the whole thing before posting.
Sinis 12-13-07, 07:00 PM	Typically, the participants that the DM controls are all acting on the same initiative. The DM is - on a single Turn - resolving the actions of multiple creatures. Are we then to conclude that every batch of creatures the DM controls is acting simultaneously? Just between you and me, I never resolved monsters simultaneously, and neither have the DMs I've played with. In any case, their turns happen individually, and not simultaneously. Something Orc #1 does during his turn will change what Orc #2 does during his subsequent turn. Even though they act "simultaneously". For example, Orc #1 does a full-attack (read: his full round of actions) on a wooden door and breaks it down on his last attack. Orc #2 uses two move actions to pass through the empty doorframe (read: his full round of actions). If they were acting simultaneously, Orc #2 couldn't have gotten past the door, because it takes the whole round for Orc #1 to break down the door. Look, I don't care what this turn based system represents. It smells, tastes and acts like a sequentially ordered system, and none of this conceptual junk will eliminate that creatures take turns in D&D combat, and that participants in battle do not act simultaneously on the board. Given that the game is mechanically sequential, why should Attacks of Opportunity mechanically reset at some arbitrary time according to simultaneity? Me, I always thought if a monster enters the spell area during the casting of the spell and doesn't leave before the spell is finished then it effects him to. But you are free to post where it says that even if you enter a spell area during casting and don't leave before it is cast you are not effected by that spell. No, that's absolutely not what you said. You said that Tordek in my example, should he decide to charge *later* in the round, would be affected by a fireball that he was not in the radius of at the beginning of the round. I'm quite tired of your back-pedaling and doubletalk, and frankly I think you're being contrary just to be a nuisance. ----- I'm done with this thread. Frankly, I'm not sure that any should care about simultaneity, when the AoO refresh moment is, or anything else in this thread, as long as it's consistent, and reasonably closely abides by the 1 per round limit. That anyone should care, myself included, near 300 posts is beyond absurd.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 07:28 PM	Just between you and me, I never resolved monsters simultaneously, and neither have the DMs I've played with. In any case, their turns happen individually, and not simultaneously. Something Orc #1 does during his turn will change what Orc #2 does during his subsequent turn. Even though they act "simultaneously". For example, Orc #1 does a full-attack (read: his full round of actions) on a wooden door and breaks it down on his last attack. Orc #2 uses two move actions to pass through the empty doorframe (read: his full round of actions). If they were acting simultaneously, Orc #2 couldn't have gotten past the door, because it takes the whole round for Orc #1 to break down the door. Look, I don't care what this turn based system represents. It smells, tastes and acts like a sequentially ordered system, and none of this conceptual junk will eliminate that creatures take turns in D&D combat, and that participants in battle do not act simultaneously on the board. Given that the game is mechanically sequential, why should Attacks of Opportunity mechanically reset at some arbitrary time according to simultaneity? No, that's absolutely not what you said. You said that Tordek in my example, should he decide to charge *later* in the round, would be affected by a fireball that he was not in the radius of at the beginning of the round. I'm quite tired of your back-pedaling and doubletalk, and frankly I think you're being contrary just to be a nuisance. ----- I'm done with this thread. Frankly, I'm not sure that any should care about simultaneity, when the AoO refresh moment is, or anything else in this thread, as long as it's consistent, and reasonably closely abides by the 1 per round limit. That anyone should care, myself included, near 300 posts is beyond absurd. DELAY By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point. You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.Sinis, I am sorry about that. I don't use delay and ready action much nor does my players. When I read the SRD all I saw was (You can specify this new initiative result ) and then exited out without reading the ( or just wait until some time later in the round). I was wrong about the way delay works and I'm sorry for not seeing the it before now.
Marcus Majarra 12-13-07, 07:45 PM	1st point: The characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. 2nd point: The players - as opposed to the characters - are acting in Turns. 3rd point: This is because it is impractical to resolve combat with each character acting simultaneously. 4th point: Since the way players resolve combat doesn't match the characters act, we can run into issues due to the discrepancy. 5th point: DM's are shown the option to break with the player's turn system to better match what is happening with the characters 6th point: This is due to the character needing to take the time to perform his actions, as opposed to it happening instantaneously. 1st point: Notice how you use the words "are meant" here. Using this word indicates that, at some point, reality doesn't coincide with the desired effect. Since the desired effect is simultaneity, the reality is the lack of simultaneity. 2nd point: That's correct. Then again, all of the combat mechanics reflect the players' actions, not the characters'. Arguing based on what happens to characters is irrelevant, because the system exists only for the players, and these rules concern only want goes on with the players. What happens to the characters is merely a pale reflection of what goes on behind the scenes. This makes the entire player vs. character argument moot when it comes to rules. 3rd point: Be that as it may, this is how combat is played out. You cannot deny this, just like you cannot deny that an order of action exists. 4th point: These issues should only exist when you try to visualize combat in your mind. These issues do not exist within the scope of the rules or on how combat is played out. 5th point: Which brings me to the point that the system works in a way, and the only way to achieve any true semblance of simultaneity is by breaking the system. This is within the domain of Rule Zero, and should not be a valid answer in this discussion. 6th point: Be that as it may, the intended simultaneity requires Rule Zero intervention. The very example of traps in the DMG is the main reason I'm fond of the Encounter Traps introduced in Secrets of Xen'drik. This, of course, is a discussion for another day. Marcus Majarra: Believes that since a person turn, in fact all their action/s for that round of combat happen instantly so the only real way to refresh AoOs is to time 6 second from the point at which you use the AoO. Whether they happen instantly or not, they are resolved at a specific point in time. Even if we cannot pinpoint this moment exactly, we know where it exists relatively to other activities in the round and we can very well examine the AoO in a one-round window under an infinity of possibile windows. Whether the action is instantaneous or requires an amount of time doesn't matter because, either way, the time/effort required to make an AoO is constant. The fact that an order of play that affects combat participants exists makes it so that the only way to guarantee that one AoO per round is made is by looking at every possible one-round window, and see if the limit on AoOs was respected. The only way to achieve this is through 1-round cooldowns. This is simple mathematics.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 08:37 PM	1st point: Notice how you use the words "are meant" here. Using this word indicates that, at some point, reality doesn't coincide with the desired effect. Since the desired effect is simultaneity, the reality is the lack of simultaneity. 2nd point: That's correct. Then again, all of the combat mechanics reflect the players' actions, not the characters'. Arguing based on what happens to characters is irrelevant, because the system exists only for the players, and these rules concern only want goes on with the players. What happens to the characters is merely a pale reflection of what goes on behind the scenes. This makes the entire player vs. character argument moot when it comes to rules. 3rd point: Be that as it may, this is how combat is played out. You cannot deny this, just like you cannot deny that an order of action exists. 4th point: These issues should only exist when you try to visualize combat in your mind. These issues do not exist within the scope of the rules or on how combat is played out. 5th point: Which brings me to the point that the system works in a way, and the only way to achieve any true semblance of simultaneity is by breaking the system. This is within the domain of Rule Zero, and should not be a valid answer in this discussion. 6th point: Be that as it may, the intended simultaneity requires Rule Zero intervention. The very example of traps in the DMG is the main reason I'm fond of the Encounter Traps introduced in Secrets of Xen'drik. This, of course, is a discussion for another day. Whether they happen instantly or not, they are resolved at a specific point in time. Even if we cannot pinpoint this moment exactly, we know where it exists relatively to other activities in the round and we can very well examine the AoO in a one-round window under an infinity of possibile windows. Whether the action is instantaneous or requires an amount of time doesn't matter because, either way, the time/effort required to make an AoO is constant. The fact that an order of play that affects combat participants exists makes it so that the only way to guarantee that one AoO per round is made is by looking at every possible one-round window, and see if the limit on AoOs was respected. The only way to achieve this is through 1-round cooldowns. This is simple mathematics.1. mine was just a overview, but thanks forposting that for them. 2. What?????:confused: The system exists so that everyone has fun playing it. The players aren't allowed to meta gamewhen roleplay, That's using outside knowledge when determining what the PC does. But then they put init in place to determine how the player actions for the round. (Yeah who cares what happens in game anyway!:rolleyes:)
the_rooster 12-13-07, 09:23 PM	I'm with Sinis here. I think you're arguing just to avoid being wrong. You keep saying the same thing over and over, despite your points getting shot down at every turn with rules text and common sense. The simple fact is this: if the designers intended initiative to be nothing more than who gets to talk first, then every feat, combat feature and stat bonus (Dex) that increases initiative rolls because a character is supposedly faster than others...is a complete waste and frankly misleading...good job designers. Anyone who clings to the argument that everything happens at the EXACT same time is also saying that initiative is pointless and every feat or ability to raise it is, in fact, a BAD thing because you're giving away information without getting an effect. Because if everything happens at once, then why apply damage until the end of the round? Why allow spells to go off? Why let anything done during the round have any effect on anyone until the END of the round? THAT is simultaneous. Everything else is sequential. That's not rules, that's logic. So feel free to continue contradicting the obvious intent of the rules based on one sentence that you're pigeonholing into what YOU think it means instead of considering that it might mean something else...and have fun with your characters and their wasted DEX bonuses.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 10:40 PM	All I know is what the books say. If every round is 6 seconds long, everyone is in combat the same 6 seconds, everyone is assume to take an entire rounds worth of action, and all actions are divided up into the ammount of time require to use it the how is it possible if the actions don't mostly overlap. If I'm wrong I'll say so and I'm not affraid to do so not one bit. But I'm not going to just because people ignore what the book says just because they think the writers meant something different. I have already said that every one acts one after the other at the table but that is outside the game, not in the game. And that is where things are getting confused. When a player decides what their PC will do they are supposed to think as the PC in the game and not use outside knowledge to do so. All the other side keeps post is what they think and how init rules work and everything I post says that is how it works out of the game at the table but not in the game world during combat. Player characters in the D&D game often go looking for trouble and, more often than not, they find it. When trouble arises, combat is sure to follow. The action during a round of battle in the D&D game takes place more or less simultaneously; however, resolving everyone's activities at the same time isn't too practical, so everybody must take turns. That's where initiative comes in. Initiative doesn't pose too many difficulties for players and DMs. Nevertheless, situations often arise that can make even something as simple as initiative seem hopelessly confusing. These series examines those times when the action in a D&D campaign makes the initiative rules break down. Initiative Basics A complete tour of the initiative rules requires several stops. Pages 136-137 in the Player's Handbook cover initiative fundamentals. The descriptions of special initiative actions, which begin on page 160 in the Player's Handbook, add considerable depth and complexity to the initiative rules. The rules for starting and running an encounter on pages 22-24 in the Dungeon Master's Guide include additional information on initiative. A look at the introduction to D&D combat on page 133 in the Player's Handbook and the general information on acting during combat on page 138 also would prove helpful in understanding initiative. From the page 136-137 of the Player's Handbook: Initiative Every round, each combatant gets to do something. The combatants' initiative checks, from highest to lowest, determine the order in which they act. Initiative Checks: At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. The DM finds out what order characters are acting in, counting down from highest result to lowest, and each character acts in turn. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions, page 160). Usually, the DM writes the names of the characters down in initiative order so that on subsequent rounds he can move quickly from one character to the next. If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other. Monster Initiative: Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even for individual creatures. For instance, the DM may make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and another check for all seven of her zombie guards. Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. (This fact can be very bad for you if you're attacked by rogues.) Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity. Inaction: Even if you can't take actions (for instance, if you become paralyzed or unconscious), you retain your initiative score for the duration of the encounter. For example, when paralyzed by a ghoul, you may miss one or more actions, but once the cleric casts remove paralysis on you, you may act again on your next turn. Surprise When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised. Determining Awareness Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware. The DM determines who is aware of whom at the start of a battle. He may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks to see how aware the adventurers are of their opponents. The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round (see Standard Actions, page 139). You can also take free actions during the surprise round, at the DM's discretion. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs. Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC. Here's an overview of the initiative rules and some key concepts relating to initiative: Combat in the D&D game takes place in rounds 6 seconds long. The initiative rules exist to make sure that everyone involved in a battle gets a chance to act once during each round of combat. A round remains 6 seconds long no matter how many combatants become involved in a battle. This is possible because, as noted earlier, everyone who acts in a round is assumed to act more or less simultaneously. Initiative checks determine the order in which combatants' actions are resolved during a round. Once the DM establishes an initiative order for a battle, there's very little that can change it. As noted on page 136 in the Player's Handbook, an initiative check is a Dexterity check. Few other things can affect an initiative check. Feats such as Improved Initiative can improve your initiative bonus. Any improvement or impairment to your Dexterity score that is in effect when the battle begins affects your initiative for that battle. If your Dexterity score changes during the battle, your initiative result doesn't change. For example, if you receive a cat's gracespell before a battle begins, you get the benefit of the improvement to your Dexterity score when you make your initiative check for that battle. If a foe dispels your cat's grace spell after the battle begins, your Dexterity score decreases appropriately, but your initiative number doesn't change as the result of the decrease. The initiative order in a battle isn't completely set in stone, however. The ready and delay actions both have the potential to change a combatant's place in the order (and they usually do). Part Three considers these actions in more detail. As noted earlier, one pass through the initiative order constitutes one 6-second round. One could say that a round of combat begins just before the combatant with the highest initiative number acts and ends just after the combatant with the lowest initiative number acts. Despite the foregoing, remember that the term "round" can be relative. It can refer to one complete initiative cycle, or it can refer to the period of time between one combatant's turn and that combatant's next turn. From the page 138 of the Player's Handbook: Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round. Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity, page 137, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.) Combatants make initiative checks when the DM decides that an encounter has begun or has the potential to begin. The rules leave identifying an encounter's start to the DM's good judgment. As a rule of thumb, however, an encounter begins when two groups are close enough to each other to perceive each other and at least one of the two groups has done so. As we shall see in Part Two, it is sometimes best to call for initiative when a group's meeting is merely imminent, such as when a party opens a door in an unexplored dungeon. In any case, it's usually best to call for initiative checks whenever you find that establishing an initiative order might prove helpful. For example, establishing an initiative order could prove useful during an encounter in which several different creatures are trying to deal with a series of traps or negotiations with several different creatures. A group (or a single character) can surprise a potential foe by noticing that foe before the foe can notice them. When one group surprises another, a surprise round ensues. During a surprise round, the character or group that has achieved surprise can take one standard action. Creatures that have been surprised cannot act during a surprise round. At times, some creatures in a group will notice a foe when the others do not. In such cases, an encounter still begins with a surprise round, but everyone who has noticed the other group gets to act during the surprise round, though the acting creatures still are limited to one standard action each. Combatants remain in initiative order until the DM decides that it is no longer necessary. Releasing characters from the initiative order usually marks an encounter's end. It's usually a good idea to keep characters in initiative order until all danger to them (at least from the current encounter) is past. Players might pick up on this, so sometimes you may want to keep using an initiative order for a little longer than strictly necessary just to maintain a sense of danger and tension in the game. Once a party has dealt with the challenges and obstacles an encounter offers, however, you'll probably find that maintaining an initiative order slows things down. For example, after the party defeats a group of monsters in an encounter they'll probably want to distribute some healing magic among the player characters, loot their defeated foes, and look for treasure. It's usually best to simply allow the players to handle those tasks outside of the initiative order. Sometimes, it's not entirely clear just when actions in initiative should stop. We'll consider some of those situations in Part Three. All combatants roll once for initiative when the DM decides an encounter has begun. The rules don't allow you to "take 20" or even "take 10" on an initiative check. Your initiative check result initially represents your character's ability to react when an encounter begins. (That's why characters are flat-footed until they take an action in an encounter's first round.) You have only one chance for an initial reaction to an encounter, and the rules don't allow you to prepare yourself for an encounter when you don't know it's coming. If you're fortunate enough to notice potential foes before they notice you, you achieve surprise over your foe, which is a great advantage for you. See page 137 in the Player's Handbook. Even so, if your foe survives your initial action, you could lose your advantage. That's why you and your foe must make initiative checks after a surprise round. Managing Initiative The rules make one very valuable suggestion for any DM trying to handle combat smoothly and efficiently: Write down the initiative order. Many DMs I know keep a pad of paper or a small dry erase board for jotting down initiative. This is a great idea, especially if you can prop up your writing surface when you're done -- if you do so, everyone can see the initiative order and will know when their turns come. I use a particularly large vinyl mat (marked in 1-inch squares) to regulate combat and I jot the initiative right on the mat. I also use another trick. When preparing for a game, I jot down the game statistics for everything the PCs will meet onto index cards. I also have each player record key information about their characters (ability scores, Armor Class, base attack and grapple bonuses, saving throw bonuses, and key skill scores) on index cards as well. When an encounter starts, I place all the cards into initiative order. When someone delays or readies an action, I can remove the appropriate card from the order and place it back in the correct place when the combatant finally acts. If I happen to drop or somehow scramble the cards, I can easily reset the cards by referring to the written initiative order, and the players also have the written order for reference. I find this method well worth the effort it entails. One of the biggest advantages of the D&D game's initiative system is its potential to speed up combat, and the combination of cards and a written initiative can make things speedy indeed. What's Next? That's all the time we have this week. Next week, we'll consider the fine art of deciding just when an encounter begins.I don't decide on one sentence, just like I don't jump someone until I have read the thread all the way through most of the time. I have confused some people with other but that is not the same.
Marcus Majarra 12-13-07, 11:12 PM	All I know is what the books say. If every round is 6 seconds long, everyone is in combat the same 6 seconds, everyone is assume to take an entire rounds worth of action, and all actions are divided up into the ammount of time require to use it the how is it possible if the actions don't mostly overlap. If I'm wrong I'll say so and I'm not affraid to do so not one bit. But I'm not going to just because people ignore what the book says just because they think the writers meant something different. I have already said that every one acts one after the other at the table but that is outside the game, not in the game. And that is where things are getting confused. When a player decides what their PC will do they are supposed to think as the PC in the game and not use outside knowledge to do so. All the other side keeps post is what they think and how init rules work and everything I post says that is how it works out of the game at the table but not in the game world during combat. The thing is: players decide what their characters will do based on metaknowledge. This is inevitable because players need to be aware of how they can get their characters to act. Players don't act based on game world knowledge; they act based on system knowledge. This is how combat is played out. You need to differentiate between what's being played out and what's happening. The closest thing we have to actual simultaneity, as the_rooster and I have stated, is that things are happening more or less at the same time during any given 6-round window. At some degree, it's a fair statement to say that the activity for that round overlaps at some points, but it is always resolved in sequence. No two actions occur at the same time, but they occur close enough to one another that we can assume that they're taking place more or less at the same time, within a one-round window. These windows are movable to any and every initiative count there is, which is why there is little relevance to the start and end of rounds. In any case, rules arguments don't deal with the game world. They deal with the meta-system, which creates a level of abstraction of the actual game world. This level of abstraction is where the game is played and it's what's being played than ends up translating to game world events, not the other way around.
Ace_of_time 12-13-07, 11:27 PM	All I said was that whether you give AoO back on Init counts or every 6 seconds of combat in game it will equal out to be at About the same time. That was all I said. And then got jump because actions were instantaneous.
BoringInfoGuy 12-13-07, 11:47 PM	Just between you and me, I never resolved monsters simultaneously, and neither have the DMs I've played with. In any case, their turns happen individually, and not simultaneously. Something Orc #1 does during his turn will change what Orc #2 does during his subsequent turn. Even though they act "simultaneously". For example, Orc #1 does a full-attack (read: his full round of actions) on a wooden door and breaks it down on his last attack. Orc #2 uses two move actions to pass through the empty doorframe (read: his full round of actions). If they were acting simultaneously, Orc #2 couldn't have gotten past the door, because it takes the whole round for Orc #1 to break down the door. So you argue that the fact that the orcs have the same initiative does not mean that they are acting simultaneously. Yet you did argue that the fact that combatants never act at the same time in combat because they are not acting on the same initiative. If not having the same initiative is proof of not acting simultaneously, then having the same initiative is proof of doing so. In truth, neither is proof of either. The action in a round is happening more or less simultaneously for the characters. Nothing - for the characters - is preventing them from taking actions at the same time. We - the players and DM - instead use a system of taking turns only because we are unable to use a simultaneous system without creating mass confusion, to use the designers phrase. But they felt it was important for us to understand what that combat round is meant to represent. Since this is a Roleplaying game, we should want to try and think of things in character terms as much as possible. A couple of things about the orc example, though. First, the orcs are not taking turns. The DM is taking his turn. (In the description of Simultaneous activity, the writer took great care to distinguish between character actions and player turns. We should respect that effort). Second, If I've decided that the first Orc going to take a full round to break down that door, then I would have the second orc unable to exit through the door until the next round, same as the first orc. (I have used and played with DM's who resolve monster actions on a single turn. Among other things, combat runs faster that way.) The only thing this example has shown is that when you since you view the orcs as taking turns, you would resolve combat one way. Since I'm viewing characters and creatures as acting more or less simultaneously, I would resolve it another way. Look, I don't care what this turn based system represents. It smells, tastes and acts like a sequentially ordered system, and none of this conceptual junk will eliminate that creatures take turns in D&D combat, and that participants in battle do not act simultaneously on the board. Given that the game is mechanically sequential, why should Attacks of Opportunity mechanically reset at some arbitrary time according to simultaneity? That's too bad. I personally like when I can increase my understanding. But then, I did choose to call myself Boring Info(rmative) Guy. But one thing to consider. If you understand this "conceptual junk" as you call it, then you may find that you start altering how you run your combats as a result. ----- I'm done with this thread. Frankly, I'm not sure that any should care about simultaneity, when the AoO refresh moment is, or anything else in this thread, as long as it's consistent, and reasonably closely abides by the 1 per round limit. That anyone should care, myself included, near 300 posts is beyond absurd. Goodbye. I hope that you've gotten something positive out of this thread.
weasel0 12-14-07, 12:10 AM	Course, that could be why I said, "roughly"
Marcus Majarra 12-14-07, 03:50 AM	So you argue that the fact that the orcs have the same initiative does not mean that they are acting simultaneously. Yet you did argue that the fact that combatants never act at the same time in combat because they are not acting on the same initiative. If not having the same initiative is proof of not acting simultaneously, then having the same initiative is proof of doing so. This is a sophism. Having different initiatives automatically indicates the lack of simultaneity because no two different initiatives occur at the same time. However, even creatures with the same initiative do not act at the same time, since combat participants who roll a tie for initiative must break the tie. In truth, neither is proof of either. The action in a round is happening more or less simultaneously for the characters. Nothing - for the characters - is preventing them from taking actions at the same time. We - the players and DM - instead use a system of taking turns only because we are unable to use a simultaneous system without creating mass confusion, to use the designers phrase. But they felt it was important for us to understand what that combat round is meant to represent. Since this is a Roleplaying game, we should want to try and think of things in character terms as much as possible. This is not possible when it comes to rulings. The system works in a way that may or may not reflect a certain reality well. Whether it succeeds in this has no relevance in how the system works. The only thing this example has shown is that when you since you view the orcs as taking turns, you would resolve combat one way. Since I'm viewing characters and creatures as acting more or less simultaneously, I would resolve it another way. Except that this is not how the game is played out. The game is played out sequentially in turns. It's not a matter of how you view combat. Combat turns and character actions actually take place sequentially, not simultaneously. the_rooster provided some great examples as to why this is a reality. If simultaneity were truly a crucial point in the mechanics of the system, then initiative should be irrelevant. Furthermore, there's no reason why anyone would be flat-footed at the start of combat, since everyone would be now acting at the same time. By these virtues, Improved Initiative becomes a useless feat since the acting sequence would be of no importance. But one thing to consider. If you understand this "conceptual junk" as you call it, then you may find that you start altering how you run your combats as a result. Or you may realize that these are simply desired concepts would be too confusing to truly implement and that the actual system provides an approximation of the desired concepts. Regardless of the perspective you choose to pick, combats are run according to the rules, not perspectives.
Ace_of_time 12-14-07, 07:27 AM	This is why a house rule is the best thing. No argueing over whether the book says it or no. You just sit down with your group and as a group deside how the rules work. Then at your table things are clear. If you think it is unclear whether they come back on init counts or 6 seconds after used, talk to them about it. Problemed solve. As for the rules they say both are true. You go by init counts at the table one after another but in game the actions happen at the same time/ about the same. How ever which ever the way, wouldn't have anything to do with the way you say it happens. Because you think it should happen 6 seconds after use.
Marcus Majarra 12-14-07, 11:50 AM	This is why a house rule is the best thing. I understand this, but we can't answer a rules question by telling everyone to go and house rule something we don't like. There would be little point to this forum if that were the case. What we can do is evaluate the RAW. As for the rules they say both are true. Actually, the rules are silent on which is true. This is the reason why this discussion is ongoing. The books confirm neither of the options presented and interpretations can be made in favor or against some or all of them.
Sinis 12-14-07, 12:33 PM	I know I said that I was done with this thread, but I can't help but feel BoringInfoGuy's rebuttal of my Orc example is pretty disingenuous. Second, If I've decided that the first Orc going to take a full round to break down that door, then I would have the second orc unable to exit through the door until the next round, same as the first orc. (I have used and played with DM's who resolve monster actions on a single turn. Among other things, combat runs faster that way.) The only thing this example has shown is that when you since you view the orcs as taking turns, you would resolve combat one way. Since I'm viewing characters and creatures as acting more or less simultaneously, I would resolve it another way. So, I've noticed that you would arbitrarily rule that orc #2 could not pass through the door, due to simultaneity of action. The interesting consequence is that if you replace "Orc" with "PC" in this example, your ruling becomes much messier. Are you prepared to tell a PC he can't walk through a door that's been "opened" because actions happen simultaneously? If you don't rule against a PC trying to move through a freshly bashed door, are actions of all participants truly simultaneous? Are the Orcs now at a disadvantage, because of their inability to do things sequentially? Further, this is even more messy when it comes to movement in general. Since you can't generally occupy other people's squares, you have to move everyone on the board simultaneously to see if their actions conflict with anyone else's, and also to see if people are being granted attacks of opportunity by passing near each other during this simultaneous movement. Even more complicated than that is the fact that creatures move at different rates. A dwarf can move 80ft as a full run, but how fast can a dragon fly? If you're moving them simultaneously, how many squares does a dragon move for every square the dwarf moves? Do you see how ridiculous simultaneity in the mechanical sense is? It isn't a matter of simply pointing and saying "The orc couldn't move through the door, because it's still being bashed in." If you really want to preserve simultaneity, there are boatloads more things that violate simultaneous action, or are consequences of simultaneous action. Are you prepared to simulate all of them, or will you simply pick and choose which are easiest? Simulating all of them is at the very best impractical, and at the very worst impossible. Picking and choosing makes things even more arbitrary. At this point, it could be said that you're not really following the rules of combat and initiative. Combat is mechanically sequential, and the second you start arbitrarily ruling for simultaneity, you open a can of worms for precedent. Surely you can see that. Now, I'm not saying this because I want your response, and the next chain of rebuttals for this. I say this without feeling the need for proof that mechanical simultaneous action in combat is, if you were to be rigorous about it, extremely ridiculous. I know that some of you hold the belief that actions should be mechanically simultaneous in combat, and that you're willing to make a huge number of arbitrary rulings to make it closer to that, but I want you to step back for a second and take a look at just how many things you will have to do differently to bring mechanical combat in the RAW closer to simultaneous action. And if you see something that you could change to make it closer to simultaneous combat, you absolutely have to change it, because if you don't, you're being arbitrary about what is simultaneous and what isn't. That's what being rigorous is comprised of. Tread very lightly in this regard. Lastly, the "conceptual junk" to which I was referring has no basis in mechanical gameplay, and should only be thought of as "junk" in that context. I'm very much an avid role-player, I don't play D&D because I like to move miniatures around on a battlegrid (though, this is part of the enjoyment). Now I'm really done with this thread. I will not respond to any more posts no matter how disingenuous or logically fallacious. This thread has certainly outlived its usefulness, and I want no further part in it.
Ace_of_time 12-15-07, 11:05 AM	About the orcs. My players already know this. They take most of their actions based on the last round of combat. IE they don't heal damage taken during this round and would only heal if they were damage last round. This is not because the damage didn't exist till the it is because their PCs wouldn't be aware of that damage when they they decided what their PCs did at the start of that 6 second window. There is no way that orcat the start of the round if the door would be broken down. They could have planed ahead at which the orc 2 could delay to see if he was success then move through the door. At that same point at the start of the 6 second window the PCs are not going to see the door open till half way through the window so would base their action on what happen last round or their listen checks. Now to marcus: The RAWs clearly state that one thing happens during combat in the game but that those actions in init cycles at the gaming table. I'm sorry you don't/ won't see that. As to everything being house ruling most of the problems on here can be resolved just by talking to the group about how things should work. If the group knew how they DM rules thing and the DM used rules the group as a whole decided to used half the post on would even get started. Now if you want to get to the point of rules questions is answering what the rules say. (which I have posted what they say and you said that's not what they meant) The question asked was when the AoO refresh. Whether they all actions happen at the same time in game or not has nothing to do with the way you think AoO refresh.
Marcus Majarra 12-15-07, 02:09 PM	Now to marcus: The RAWs clearly state that one thing happens during combat in the game but that those actions in init cycles at the gaming table. I'm sorry you don't/ won't see that. As to everything being house ruling most of the problems on here can be resolved just by talking to the group about how things should work. If the group knew how they DM rules thing and the DM used rules the group as a whole decided to used half the post on would even get started. Now if you want to get to the point of rules questions is answering what the rules say. (which I have posted what they say and you said that's not what they meant) The question asked was when the AoO refresh. Whether they all actions happen at the same time in game or not has nothing to do with the way you think AoO refresh. Ace, the RAW doesn't clearly state what you think it does. What you see as "clear" is explicitly stated as being "more or less," to quote the PHB, which certainly doesn't fall within the definition of clear. In any case, game mechanics are created to work off other game mechanics, as opposed to interpretations of what's happening in the game world. Furthermore, I wasn't the one to argue that AoOs were linked to everything happening simultaneously or otherwise. You brought up this point yourself. I never argued for the simultaneity of actions because they're simply not simultaneous. While a round's activity is more or less simultaneous, a round's actions are not. My argument has always been that AoOs are tied to the initiative count(s) during which they take place. This claim has plenty of support within the RAW.
Ace_of_time 12-15-07, 11:08 PM	I think I might pass out if you really show us where in the RAWs that proves that for you? Or any thing in the rule. When I say something I post the rule/s that I get that from. Then you say " well that's not what that means'' or "That's not clear as to what it is saying" or "at the same time disargees with the PHB which says more or less the same time." You even said before that that statement wasn't even anywhere in the rules. What ever! You ether go by what the rules says or you use a house rule to make it make sense to you and your group, but a person shouldn't argue 4 page on what the writers were thinking when writing at the same time. I already said I said that and I posted where I got it from as well as where in the rules it says that actions require an ammount of time to do and characters are assumed to use a whole rounds worth of action on their init count. What happens then? The statement I'm wrong even if the RAWs do say it. Note: It is true that I said tha statement first, because every 6 second refresh and init count refresh happen at about the same time in game so there is no real difference in the two. So my question still stands. IF YOU DON'T THINK IT IS ETHER OF THOSE WHY ARGUE THE "AT THE SAME TIME" THING TO BEGIN WITH? It doesn't prove or disprove the way you think the rules say yours happens.
Marcus Majarra 12-16-07, 12:31 AM	Well, I can find plenty of RAW proof that actions are not simultaneous: 1) "Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest)" (PHB p133, under How Combat Works) 2) "Every round, each combatant gets to do something. The combatants' initiative checks, from highest to lowest, determine the order in which they act." (PHB p136, under Initiative) These statements directly indicate that characters act in a certain order. An order of action is contradictory with the notion of simultaneity, by definition. 3) "If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifer (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which of them goes before the other." (PHB p136, under Initiative Checks) This statement clears out any possible incongruities in the acting order as it insures that no two combatants act at the same, even when their initiative check results are equal. 4) "You react more quickly than normal in a fight." (PHB p96, under Improved Initiative)" Since the mechanical benefit of the feat is a bonus on initiative checks, the fact that you're reacting more quickly results in your acting before others, at the start of combat. This notion contradicts the idea of simultaneity, which would stipulate that combatants would react at the same time. 5) "At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed." (PHB p137, under Flat-Footed) This statement implies that there exists an amount of time before each combatant first gets to act and that this amount of time is different for every combatant. This is made obvious by the fact that certain combatants get their first regular turns after others. If actions were simultaneous, every combatant would cease to be flat-footed at the same time, making the flat-footed condition pointless in this particular instance. 6) "For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. The term 'round' works like the word 'month.' A month can mean either a calendar month or a span of time from a day in one month to the same day next month. In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before he same initiative count that they began on." (PHB p138, under The Combat Round) This statement indicates that we must usually not pay any special attention to the end or beginning of rounds because a round represents a span of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round. This completely destroys any notion of true simultaneity for obvious reasons: in a simultaneous combat model, initiative counts don't represent specific moments in time, since all activity takes place simultaneously. However, the fact that a round denotes the interval between two successive occurrences of the same initiative count implies that initiative counts take place at specific times and no two initiative counts take place simultaneously. These six statements should be far sufficient to completely refute any notion of actual simultaneity with respect to how the game is played. While simultaneity might have been the intended result, the game is not played as such. Turns take place sequentially and the start/end of rounds are irrelevant since a round represents a span of time, as opposed to specific temporal intervals.
BobbyMac 12-16-07, 11:33 AM	FWIW... Simultaneous Activity When playing out a combat scene or some other activity for which time is measured in rounds, remember that all the combatants' actions occur simultaneously. The combatants' acting in turn according to the initiative count is a situation necessary for order in game play, but it's an abstraction. This sequential order of play can lead to situations when something significant happens to a combatant at the end of that creature's turn but before other creatures have acted in the same round. It's up to the DM whether other combatants who have yet to act during the round can react to an event that happens to another combatant in this way. ~~Rules Compendium~
Marcus Majarra 12-16-07, 02:47 PM	The thing is: these kinds of rulings should be the exception, not the rule. If the DM starts to make ad hoc judgments based on the idea of simultaneous combats all the time, the system becomes incoherent and certain elements of the game become pointless, such as being flat-footed at the start of combat. These rulings work well for traps, but then again, it's no different than simply assigning an initiative count to a trap, which amounts to setting up an event so that it is independent of a round's activity. This is how the Encounter Traps from Secrets of Xen'drik work and it fits the simultaneous activity model quite well. We still need to keep in mind that such rulings form the exception, not the rule.
Ace_of_time 12-16-07, 08:02 PM	You still don't understand. The only time you break actions down into init counts is when it will make it easier on the DM. As I have posted atleast a 100 times Those point you posted are what happens AT THE TABLE to make it easier on the DM. Do you even realize That init count and all actions at the same time are the SAME THING. Whe someones init comes up it is their turn for the 6 second of combat and when they end their turn it is the end of the 6 seconds and then when the next init comes up it is their turn to take their actions for the 6 seconds of combat and so on till everyone has acted for that round the the next round starts. But IN GAME all those actions taken during all those init counts happen at the same time. Now I was talking about how you get that the RAWs say AoO refresh 6 seconds after use. But I love how the subject got change AGAIN to the "AT THE SAME THING" thing. The DMG says those are true about how it happens AT the table, but the all happen at the same time. IF YOU DON'T THINK IT IS ETHER OF THOSE WHY ARGUE THE "AT THE SAME TIME" THING TO BEGIN WITH? It doesn't prove or disprove the way you think the rules say yours happens? So I'll ask again in the hopes of an answer. Why does it matter if it doesn't prove or disprove your way for AoO to be refreshed?
Marcus Majarra 12-16-07, 10:19 PM	It matters because I will not allow consensus to be reached in favor for simultaneity, since the system breaks it as the rule, whereas the DM enforces it as the exception. This is evident when we look at the DMG and the Rules Compendium sections on simultaneous activity. I realize well that certain situations warrant DM calls on simultaneous activity, but this is the exception. I encourage them where necessary: when a general rule creates an event that should be independent of the order of actions, such as triggering a trap by location. If you're curious, I rule that location traps trigger right before the start of the next turn of the character who triggers the trap. This makes it so that metaknowledge of the trap is prevented and everyone ends up reacting at the same time. Now, as for when I get that the RAW states that AoOs refresh 6 seconds after use is when I look at the definition of a round. RAW stipulates that a round usually represents a span of time from one round to the same initiative count on the next round. Since it represents a span of time, we must conclude that you can only make one AoO per 6-second time span. We know that such a time span exists between the moment the highest initiative acts and the moment the lowest initiative is done acting. We also know that this time span exists between two successive occurrences of the same initiative count. For example, between two successive init 15 counts, there is exactly one round. In order for the once per round limit to be met 100% of the time, you must not be able to pick out any round during which more than one AoO takes place. If we can state for a fact that there is exactly one round between two successive init 15 counts, any scenario that allows a character to make more than one AoO in this round breaks the once per round limit. The only way to guarantee that you never make more than your roundly allotment of AoOs is to make that AoO inaccessible until 1 round has passed since you started making it. If AoOs have 1-round cooldowns, you'll never have more than one AoO per round, regardless of which round you look at. Precedent for this can be found in the RotG article BoringInfoGuy provided earlier in the discussion. Between two uses of a SLA that's usable once per day, there must be a 24-hour delay.
Ace_of_time 12-17-07, 12:03 AM	It matters because I will not allow consensus to be reached in favor for simultaneity, since the system breaks it as the rule, whereas the DM enforces it as the exception. This is evident when we look at the DMG and the Rules Compendium sections on simultaneous activity. I realize well that certain situations warrant DM calls on simultaneous activity, but this is the exception. I encourage them where necessary: when a general rule creates an event that should be independent of the order of actions, such as triggering a trap by location. If you're curious, I rule that location traps trigger right before the start of the next turn of the character who triggers the trap. This makes it so that metaknowledge of the trap is prevented and everyone ends up reacting at the same time. Now, as for when I get that the RAW states that AoOs refresh 6 seconds after use is when I look at the definition of a round. RAW stipulates that a round usually represents a span of time from one round to the same initiative count on the next round. Since it represents a span of time, we must conclude that you can only make one AoO per 6-second time span. We know that such a time span exists between the moment the highest initiative acts and the moment the lowest initiative is done acting. We also know that this time span exists between two successive occurrences of the same initiative count. For example, between two successive init 15 counts, there is exactly one round. In order for the once per round limit to be met 100% of the time, you must not be able to pick out any round during which more than one AoO takes place. If we can state for a fact that there is exactly one round between two successive init 15 counts, any scenario that allows a character to make more than one AoO in this round breaks the once per round limit. The only way to guarantee that you never make more than your roundly allotment of AoOs is to make that AoO inaccessible until 1 round has passed since you started making it. If AoOs have 1-round cooldowns, you'll never have more than one AoO per round, regardless of which round you look at. Precedent for this can be found in the RotG article BoringInfoGuy provided earlier in the discussion. Between two uses of a SLA that's usable once per day, there must be a 24-hour delay.All I see is you saying your right and no one else can be because of something in the rules that you won't even post. Where in the RAWs does it say AoO should be gained 6 seconds after use? I don't want someones thoughts on the matter or what someone thinks a person they don't even know thought when writting it. You keep saying that your way is better but nothing from the rules that says it. Just keep use SLA as an example. So I have a ring that has 3 charges per day of uses for it, when do you think those would come back? Well now let's look at the definition of A ROUND Round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant my take atleast one actions every round. Now this means that when used in the book A round means a 6 second unit of game time. Which would means you can make one per round / one per 6 second unit of game time. It doesn't even say in the book when it refreshes. Just that you get one per round whether it is your turn or not. Now A person's init count is the start of that round for that person. Even if you take the AT THE SAME TIME thing out and just say they attack one after another it is still the start of the round for each person meaning in game it will still boil down to them getting it back at the same time. There is no diference in the INIT ORDER of a round and the 6 second unit of time used to manage combat. They are both the same thing.
Marcus Majarra 12-17-07, 04:43 AM	All I see is you saying your right and no one else can be because of something in the rules that you won't even post. Where in the RAWs does it say AoO should be gained 6 seconds after use? Okay, you need to get something straight. AoOs are never gained. You simply have a limit on how many you can make. The concept of "refreshing" is merely a term to help people get around the idea of when you can make your next AoO. Per the PHB, you can make only one per round. Since a round is simply a 6-second unit of game time, the conclusion is that you can make only one AoO per 6-second unit of game time. Given this FACT, which belongs to the RAW, can you prove to me that, beyond any doubt, being allowed to make your AoO as of the "start of the round" or as of the start of your turn results in making no more than one AoO per round? The truth is that you can't. This is so because I can prove otherwise: If you're allowed to make one AoO per round starting with the highest initiative and ending with the lowest initiative (your method), it's legitimate for a character to make an AoO on init 5 in one round, and on init 20 in the following round. Since the PHB defines a round as a segment of time between two successive occurrences of the same initiative, the character is making two AoOs in one round: in the round between init 5 and the next time init 5 occurs. Thus, you cannot claim that you're making only one AoO per round since, during this particular round, you made two. This is incontrovertible proof. Now A person's init count is the start of that round for that person. This is completely irrelevant. AoOs are in no way tied to the init count of the character performing the AoO. AoOs are tied to the init count of the character provoking the AoO. The so-called start of the round has no relevance whatsoever, since a round can obviously start on any and every initiative count.
Ace_of_time 12-17-07, 07:32 AM	Okay, you need to get something straight. AoOs are never gained. You simply have a limit on how many you can make. The concept of "refreshing" is merely a term to help people get around the idea of when you can make your next AoO. Per the PHB, you can make only one per round. Since a round is simply a 6-second unit of game time, the conclusion is that you can make only one AoO per 6-second unit of game time. Given this FACT, which belongs to the RAW, can you prove to me that, beyond any doubt, being allowed to make your AoO as of the "start of the round" or as of the start of your turn results in making no more than one AoO per round? The truth is that you can't. This is so because I can prove otherwise: If you're allowed to make one AoO per round starting with the highest initiative and ending with the lowest initiative (your method), it's legitimate for a character to make an AoO on init 5 in one round, and on init 20 in the following round. Since the PHB defines a round as a segment of time between two successive occurrences of the same initiative, the character is making two AoOs in one round: in the round between init 5 and the next time init 5 occurs. Thus, you cannot claim that you're making only one AoO per round since, during this particular round, you made two. This is incontrovertible proof. This is completely irrelevant. AoOs are in no way tied to the init count of the character performing the AoO. AoOs are tied to the init count of the character provoking the AoO. The so-called start of the round has no relevance whatsoever, since a round can obviously start on any and every initiative count.Again with me having to prove and NOT post any RAWs as proof of your's. "Round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant my take atleast one actions every round." This is what the PHB defines a round. As per the glossary. It says the round can be explained as that but a round is 6 seconds of in game time. If you refresh it on any init count, doesn't matter which, you are refreshing it on that person start of the same 6 seconds of combat. It is the exact same thing as what I'm saying. There is no difference. I can't prove anything if you are unwilling to see it. I have posted already what the rules say on this. You haven't post any rules on your point. You can't say your point is right just because no one can prove you wrong. You have to prove your. Which you have not.
Marcus Majarra 12-17-07, 10:55 AM	Ace, the one-round delay between AoOs is merely a mathematical extrapolation of the once per round limit. The only RAW I need to prove my point are: 1) A round is a span of time from one round until the same initiative count next round. (PHB p138) 2) You can make only one AoO per round. (PHB p137) If you can make only one AoO per round and a round is the time span from one round until the same initiative count next round, you can only make one AoO between one particular point in a round, and the same initiative count in the next round. In order words, you can make one AoO between initiative <init x> and initiative <init x> in the next round. Since the rules are silent as to what <init x> is with respect to the AoO executed, the only safe way to meet the rule is by replacing <init x> with every available initiative count in a given combat. The only way to do this, mathematically speaking, is by making sure a full round is passed between two successive AoOs executed by the same character. Try it out for yourself. My point is right by mathematical virtue. It's not that you can't prove me wrong for lack of ability; you cannot prove me wrong because my theory is based on fact. Now, I've taken the time to disprove both the "refresh on the highest init" and "refresh on the character's init" theories. These are no longer valid. All that remains is my own, which is incontrovertible. I cannot explain this any clearer to you. If you still fail to see the logic and coherence, then so be it.
BCA 12-17-07, 08:07 PM	Ace, the one-round delay between AoOs is merely a mathematical extrapolation of the once per round limit. The only RAW I need to prove my point are: 1) A round is a span of time from one round until the same initiative count next round. (PHB p138) 2) You can make only one AoO per round. (PHB p137) If you can make only one AoO per round and a round is the time span from one round until the same initiative count next round, you can only make one AoO between one particular point in a round, and the same initiative count in the next round. In order words, you can make one AoO between initiative <init x> and initiative <init x> in the next round. Since the rules are silent as to what <init x> is with respect to the AoO executed, the only safe way to meet the rule is by replacing <init x> with every available initiative count in a given combat. The only way to do this, mathematically speaking, is by making sure a full round is passed between two successive AoOs executed by the same character. Try it out for yourself. My point is right by mathematical virtue. It's not that you can't prove me wrong for lack of ability; you cannot prove me wrong because my theory is based on fact. Now, I've taken the time to disprove both the "refresh on the highest init" and "refresh on the character's init" theories. These are no longer valid. All that remains is my own, which is incontrovertible. I cannot explain this any clearer to you. If you still fail to see the logic and coherence, then so be it. First I will tell you I haven't read this whole thread, as it would take too much time. I have read a good share of it though. I think the only "Right" answer for this (that is without a round of official errata, which won't happen since 4th is just around the corner) is this; Pick a method that works and seems fair to you and your gaming group. Once you have decided on this matter stick with that decision. The unfortunate truth is that the rules DO NOT say absolutley one way or the other, there will always be room for personal interpretation, and if you interpret it one way, then that's "correct" since the rules support you, as long as you can game with a group of like minded people you won't have a problem. If you and your friends can't agree, then either PRS* for it, or stop gaming together. Since we cannot PROVE who is right and who is not, I think we have been presented with enough "effective" systems for managing AoO's, if one of these seems suitable for your group use it, if they don't come up with something new, you can even post up your new system here, some people will like it, some people will not, as long as you can accept that some people will not, then there's nothing wrong with it. *Paper, Rock, Scissors
BCA 12-17-07, 08:09 PM	Oh, and Marcus this is not directed specifically at you, you just happened to be the last person to post, hence the quote. No offense intended.
Ace_of_time 12-17-07, 08:34 PM	Ace, the one-round delay between AoOs is merely a mathematical extrapolation of the once per round limit. The only RAW I need to prove my point are: 1) A round is a span of time from one round until the same initiative count next round. (PHB p138) 2) You can make only one AoO per round. (PHB p137) If you can make only one AoO per round and a round is the time span from one round until the same initiative count next round, you can only make one AoO between one particular point in a round, and the same initiative count in the next round. In order words, you can make one AoO between initiative <init x> and initiative <init x> in the next round. Since the rules are silent as to what <init x> is with respect to the AoO executed, the only safe way to meet the rule is by replacing <init x> with every available initiative count in a given combat. The only way to do this, mathematically speaking, is by making sure a full round is passed between two successive AoOs executed by the same character. Try it out for yourself. My point is right by mathematical virtue. It's not that you can't prove me wrong for lack of ability; you cannot prove me wrong because my theory is based on fact. Now, I've taken the time to disprove both the "refresh on the highest init" and "refresh on the character's init" theories. These are no longer valid. All that remains is my own, which is incontrovertible. I cannot explain this any clearer to you. If you still fail to see the logic and coherence, then so be it.Now your taking the rules and turning into formula and saying that proves your point?:confused: I haven't interpreted anything. I'm just telling what the rule say. Then I get told that it wrong even a bunch of people have post WotC's interpretation of what that means. The you say that is wrong because it doesn't match what you think it should be based on math. It is not a word problem. I don't fail to the ( logic and coherence). There is none.
mvincent 12-17-07, 08:40 PM	AoOs refresh 6 seconds after useAs mentioned earlier, you are the only person I've known to come to this conclusion. The rules for Immediate Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions) would probably serve as the best precedence (since they are the closest in functionality to AoO's): "Immediate Actions Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed."
Marcus Majarra 12-17-07, 08:41 PM	I haven't interpreted anything. I'm just telling what the rule say. That's the root of the problem. You're quoting rules, but you're not showing how they confirm your theories or infirm my own. When rules are unclear, it becomes a matter of interpretation. If your interpretation fails under scrutiny, it is not a correct interpretation. The you say that is wrong because it doesn't match what you think it should be based on math. Then what, pray tell, is it based upon? Where do your claims find any unrefutable support? I don't fail to the ( logic and coherence). There is none. An empty claim. You should be able to point out where my explanation ceases to be logical or coherent if that were the case. As mentioned earlier, you are the only person I've known to come to this conclusion. A popular answer is not automatically the right one. These kinds of arguments serve no purpose. The rules for Immediate Actions would probably serve as the best precedence (since they are the closest in functionality to AoO's) I disagree. The only parallel between immediate actions and AoOs is the fact that they can be executed when it's not your turn. Immediate actions are limited by the actions you're entitled to during your turns. AoOs are limited to a certain capacity within a segment of time. In this respect, they're closest in functionality to any ability that can be used a limited number of times per segment of time.
BoringInfoGuy 12-17-07, 10:33 PM	1st point: The characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. 2nd point: The players - as opposed to the characters - are acting in Turns. 3rd point: This is because it is impractical to resolve combat with each character acting simultaneously. 4th point: Since the way players resolve combat doesn't match the characters act, we can run into issues due to the discrepancy. 5th point: DM's are shown the option to break with the player's turn system to better match what is happening with the characters 6th point: This is due to the character needing to take the time to perform his actions, as opposed to it happening instantaneously. 1st point: Notice how you use the words "are meant" here. Using this word indicates that, at some point, reality doesn't coincide with the desired effect. Since the desired effect is simultaneity, the reality is the lack of simultaneity. Actually, I used the phrase "are meant" because we are talking about a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Of course reality does not coincide. If you want to talk about the actual reality of the situation, then we are talking about a game of make believe. Your comment neither adds nor subtracts from my argument. 2nd point: That's correct. Then again, all of the combat mechanics reflect the players' actions, not the characters'. Arguing based on what happens to characters is irrelevant, because the system exists only for the players, and these rules concern only want goes on with the players. What happens to the characters is merely a pale reflection of what goes on behind the scenes. This makes the entire player vs. character argument moot when it comes to rules. While you claim that it is irrelevant, the game designers felt it was important enough to add into the DM's guide. They outright say that it can be important. Skip Williams felt it important enough that it is one of the first things he describes in his "All About Initiative" article. Game designers say it can be important, you say it's irrelevant. I'm going with the DMG. 3rd point: Be that as it may, this is how combat is played out. You cannot deny this, just like you cannot deny that an order of action exists. No, nor have I tried to. What I have denied is that the characters are taking turns. Which you agreed to on my second point. 4th point: These issues should only exist when you try to visualize combat in your mind. These issues do not exist within the scope of the rules or on how combat is played out. And this is a Roleplaying game, not a combat simulator. These issues may not exist in your game, but they certainly do in the games I play in. It's beginning to sound like all you have in your game are hits, misses, statuses, damage and hit points. 5th point: Which brings me to the point that the system works in a way, and the only way to achieve any true semblance of simultaneity is by breaking the system. This is within the domain of Rule Zero, and should not be a valid answer in this discussion. Normally, I would agree that DM Rule Zero comments don't have a place in a rules discussion. But in this case we are not listening to some random DM saying how he would handle something. This is something written directly in the Dungeon Masters Guide. It is part of the explanation of how the DM should view and run combat. 6th point: Be that as it may, the intended simultaneity requires Rule Zero intervention. The very example of traps in the DMG is the main reason I'm fond of the Encounter Traps introduced in Secrets of Xen'drik. This, of course, is a discussion for another day. Regardless of the trap systems you like or dislike, the character is still intended to be taking time to perform his actions. This is a concept that you seem to be having difficulty with. This is a sophism. Having different initiatives automatically indicates the lack of simultaneity because no two different initiatives occur at the same time. However, even creatures with the same initiative do not act at the same time, since combat participants who roll a tie for initiative must break the tie. Read it again Marcus. The PHB says the DM typically rolls a single Initiative for a batch of creatures, for the express purpose of only taking a single turn. The DM does not then keep rolling initiative to break the deliberate tie. This is not possible when it comes to rulings. The system works in a way that may or may not reflect a certain reality well. Whether it succeeds in this has no relevance in how the system works. The game designers seem to think that it is possible. I've always found it possible. Perhaps the issue is that you can't handle the concept? Except that this is not how the game is played out. The game is played out sequentially in turns. It's not a matter of how you view combat. Combat turns and character actions actually take place sequentially, not simultaneously. the_rooster provided some great examples as to why this is a reality. If simultaneity were truly a crucial point in the mechanics of the system, then initiative should be irrelevant. Furthermore, there's no reason why anyone would be flat-footed at the start of combat, since everyone would be now acting at the same time. By these virtues, Improved Initiative becomes a useless feat since the acting sequence would be of no importance. Your view CAN change how you play out combat, as the example in the DMG clearly shows. Player turns take place sequentially, but the characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. The concept is really not that difficult. And once understood and applied, the way that the game is played out will change. Or you may realize that these are simply desired concepts would be too confusing to truly implement and that the actual system provides an approximation of the desired concepts. Regardless of the perspective you choose to pick, combats are run according to the rules, not perspectives. If you believe that these concepts are too confusing, then they probably are - at least for you. The Dungeons Master Guide supplies guidelines to prevent the illusion of simultaneous combat from being broken. If you are having trouble understand the why and how of it, then by all means, don't try. But stop trying to deny what the DMG says just because you can't come to grips with it.
Ace_of_time 12-17-07, 11:25 PM	That's the root of the problem. You're quoting rules, but you're not showing how they confirm your theories or infirm my own. When rules are unclear, it becomes a matter of interpretation. If your interpretation fails under scrutiny, it is not a correct interpretation. Then what, pray tell, is it based upon? Where do your claims find any unrefutable support? An empty claim. You should be able to point out where my explanation ceases to be logical or coherent if that were the case. A popular answer is not automatically the right one. These kinds of arguments serve no purpose. I disagree. The only parallel between immediate actions and AoOs is the fact that they can be executed when it's not your turn. Immediate actions are limited by the actions you're entitled to during your turns. AoOs are limited to a certain capacity within a segment of time. In this respect, they're closest in functionality to any ability that can be used a limited number of times per segment of time.It stops become logic the moment you start saying it is unclear. The books CLEARLY say that it works one way at the table and another in the game. Just like it CLEARLY says one a ROUND. The only way it could be your way is if every round was min of 30 seconds long. Seeing as how it is only a 6 second unit used to manage combat. And seeing as how your actions taken on your init for the Combat round is assumed to take up the whole 6 seconds of combat. That is where it fails. There is no way everyone can act in a round of combat one after another In Game unless they happen at the same time. Even if your action don't take 6 second they are assumed to take the whole 6 seconds on the actions you take your turn. I don't have no theories. It works just like the books say. You get them back every 6 seconds of combat. If the DM wants to take that to mean at the table then it's on init counts or if you like to think of what happens in game it every 6 seconds of combat. Not our fault you don't want that to be true.
Marcus Majarra 12-17-07, 11:39 PM	I was never denying what the DMG is saying. I understand what it says, and even quoted from it myself. What I am saying, however, is that the DMG contradicts how the game is played, according to the PHB. More to the point: the DMG explanation provides little mechanical consistency. It basically amounts to case by case rulings. The DMG text on simultaneous activity is evidently intended for use as an exception. For the purpose of this discussion, we're trying to address a rule. Establishing it based on exception cases is not coherent, since this opposes the very idea of a rule. We need to first focus on finding a rule, in order to justify exceptions to it. The DMG example demonstrates this effectively, by excepting the automatic trigger on traps with a "delayed" trigger to accomodate for simultaneity. Now, for some specific remarks: While you claim that it is irrelevant, the game designers felt it was important enough to add into the DM's guide. They outright say that it can be important. Skip Williams felt it important enough that it is one of the first things he describes in his "All About Initiative" article. Game designers say it can be important, you say it's irrelevant. I'm going with the DMG. It's irrelevant insofar as the establishment of a general rule is concerned. As I've stated above, the DMG provides with an example of an exception case. In fact, we can very well argue that one of the DM's responsibilities is to adjudicate exceptions. The DMG provides an example of such a judgment. However, these remain exceptions, and they only exist insofar as a rule is established. You need a rule to form exceptions, and the DMG makes this obvious in the latter part of this paragraph: "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round." No, nor have I tried to. What I have denied is that the characters are taking turns. Which you agreed to on my second point. Just as a clarification, I agreed based on the idea that actions, while resolved instantly, do not take place instantly. In a way, characters are still taking turns to complete their actions. The use of the verb complete is intentional here, as it's probably one of the better ways to illustrate simultaneous activity with differential activity resolution. Let me elaborate. If actions take time and we initiate them when it's your turn to act, certain activities become implausible, such as the melee full attack. After all, if an opponent moves away at the start of his turn, the idea of being able to continuedly attack him at melee range throughout an entire round loses its realism. On the other hand, if your actions represent the completion of an ongoing activity, then you're pretty much guaranteed that your opponent won't move away before you're done. In essence, creatures complete their activity every turn without the ability to react to the consequences of these actions before others have had the chance to do so. This is also consistent as it's more likely that the full effects of your actions should be felt after the actions are done. Of course, under an ideal simultaneous combat model, the effect delivery should be distributed throughout an entire round, but D&D cannot emulate this. It's also consistent in that actions that can interrupt others are indeed taking place prior to the interrupted actions, and in that interrupting an action as it nears completion truly presents a waste of time and effort on the interrupted character. For example, if you interrupt a spellcaster with an AoO, the goal is to prevent him from casting. If the interruption takes place as an action is initiated, it seems likely that time and effort might still be available, as is the case with a spellcaster who would opt to cast a spell on the start of his turn. It also fits well the idea of the sequential order and initiative as reaction time, while maintaining the illusion of simultaneity. For example, two warriors exchanging blows are not really striking one another at the exact same time. The exchange is more or less sequential, even within a single round, but when you take this to the point that one of the warriors fall, it's possible that one might get an extra blow in that the other did not. Completing activity through actions makes this possible. The defeated warrior might have been raising his sword to strike down his opponent only to have the opponent fell him before completing his attack. This makes it possible for characters to react in realtime to combat events that are of a reasonably ongoing nature, such as character actions. This also explains why in some rounds, certain combatants will not act, such as when they fall. If we take a classic look at combat rounds, a fighter whose initiative is 10 and falls by the ogre's club on initiative 15 won't get to act that round. Whatever he was intending to complete, he didn't have the time to achieve. This also makes it possible to consider initiative counts as specific moments in time, since they would represent possible moments during which you're done performing your actions (if the initiative count matches your turn). It also makes round transposable from one initiative count to the next, without losing any aspect of simultaneity. It also allows us to make an abstraction of the exact time between two initiative counts or two turns in the initiative sequence. Of course, this is mostly semantic speculation. It all comes down to how you translate the mechanical aspects of the game into concepts you can visualize. This is the fairest comprimise I've yet to address, when it comes to order of play vs. simultaneous activity. Normally, I would agree that DM Rule Zero comments don't have a place in a rules discussion. But in this case we are not listening to some random DM saying how he would handle something. This is something written directly in the Dungeon Masters Guide. It is part of the explanation of how the DM should view and run combat. More specifically, this explanation deals with specific events that, when applied strictly according to the order of play, become completely illogical when applied to the simultaneous model D&D wants to reproduce. Each of these DM interventions constitutes an application of Rule Zero and lie in the domain of exception cases. Read it again Marcus. The PHB says the DM typically rolls a single Initiative for a batch of creatures, for the express purpose of only taking a single turn. The DM does not then keep rolling initiative to break the deliberate tie. But the creatures are never actually acting at the same time. If orc #1 kills PC #1, orc #2 won't move in to attack PC #1, even if both orcs act on the same initiative count. In essence, the monsters still retain the ability to react to the actions of one another. If monsters were truly acting simultaneously, then their actions would be decided beforehand and resolved regardless of the change in circumstance. Then again, this would also apply to PCs. The fact that monsters can react to one another's actions shows that they are not acting at the exact same time. Your view CAN change how you play out combat, as the example in the DMG clearly shows. Player turns take place sequentially, but the characters are meant to be acting more or less simultaneously. The concept is really not that difficult. And once understood and applied, the way that the game is played out will change. This works the other way around as well. How you play out combat change change how you view the simultaneous activity taking place. In fact, this is the way it goes almost every time. You interpret the mechanical aspects of combat in a realistic way. The fighter didn't take 30 points of fire damage; instead his arm was very nearly scorched by the fireball. You usually don't decide on the mechanical effects based on what you want the reality to be. The game mechanics provide a framework on which you build interpretations. Of course, the game mechanics aren't perfect, and certain situations warrant special calls, as made evident by the DMG.
Marcus Majarra 12-17-07, 11:43 PM	It works just like the books say. You get them back every 6 seconds of combat. It's funny how these two sentences are adjacent. The books don't say you get them back every 6 seconds of combat. The books say that you can only make one per round. It's the interpretation of this very sentence that's at the root of the discussion. So far, we have three valid interpretations, but no ruling. Not that it matters. I've reached about the limit of my patience and willingness to repeat myself over and over again to someone who will not recognize that this problematic sentence is problematic. I've taken the matter to Customer Services, in the hopes of concluding this discussion with an official answer. I'll gladly leave the discussion with this ruling, as soon as I get their reply.
BoringInfoGuy 12-18-07, 01:18 AM	I was never denying what the DMG is saying. I understand what it says, and even quoted from it myself. What I am saying, however, is that the DMG contradicts how the game is played, according to the PHB. More to the point: the DMG explanation provides little mechanical consistency. It basically amounts to case by case rulings. The DMG text on simultaneous activity is evidently intended for use as an exception. The word you should be looking for is complement, not contradict For the purpose of this discussion, we're trying to address a rule. Establishing it based on exception cases is not coherent, since this opposes the very idea of a rule. We need to first focus on finding a rule, in order to justify exceptions to it. The DMG example demonstrates this effectively, by excepting the automatic trigger on traps with a "delayed" trigger to accomodate for simultaneity. It's kind of interesting how you keep using the term coherence to justify your arguments. It's a useful enough word. If something fits your view, you can call it coherent. If not, then you call it incoherent. But never do you actually state what makes it so. You see a series of excemption cases. What I see is an understanding of the underlying principles of combat in DnD. Now, for some specific remarks: It's irrelevant insofar as the establishment of a general rule is concerned. As I've stated above, the DMG provides with an example of an exception case. In fact, we can very well argue that one of the DM's responsibilities is to adjudicate exceptions. The DMG provides an example of such a judgment. However, these remain exceptions, and they only exist insofar as a rule is established. You need a rule to form exceptions, and the DMG makes this obvious in the latter part of this paragraph: "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead to situations where something significant happens to a character at the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the same round." As you see it. We can also state that has a general rule, when a situation in the game breaks the illusion that action is simultaneous, we rule as appropriate to preserve the illusion. Just as a clarification, I agreed based on the idea that actions, while resolved instantly, do not take place instantly. In a way, characters are still taking turns to complete their actions. The use of the verb complete is intentional here, as it's probably one of the better ways to illustrate simultaneous activity with differential activity resolution. Let me elaborate. And here we have yet another Marcus addition to the rules. Now it's characters taking turns to complete their actions. Show me this statement in RAW Marcus, then we'll talk. More specifically, this explanation deals with specific events that, when applied strictly according to the order of play, become completely illogical when applied to the simultaneous model D&D wants to reproduce. Each of these DM interventions constitutes an application of Rule Zero and lie in the domain of exception cases. What we are dealing with is an understanding of the underlying principles of combat. But the creatures are never actually acting at the same time. If orc #1 kills PC #1, orc #2 won't move in to attack PC #1, even if both orcs act on the same initiative count. In essence, the monsters still retain the ability to react to the actions of one another. If monsters were truly acting simultaneously, then their actions would be decided beforehand and resolved regardless of the change in circumstance. Then again, this would also apply to PCs. The fact that monsters can react to one another's actions shows that they are not acting at the exact same time. And here, we see how the application of that understanding is lacking. If the DM has all the orcs acting on the same initiative, he can decide that orc #1 and #2 will both decide to attack the same PC. Even if the first orc manages to kill the PC, the second orc would have been heading to that same PC at more or less the same time. It's quite conceivable that he second orc would still follow through on his attack. Remember, one attack roll does not mean one strike with the weapon. Before orc #1 could land that killing blow, the second orc, acting at more or less the same time, would also reach the PC and begin his attack. When you come down to it, nothing states that the DM needs to finish one orcs actions before moving on to the next. Just that he typically resolves them on a single turn. A DM could very well take care of all the move actions of the orcs first, and then resolve the attacks. Imagine a large group of orcs attacking the party. The fighter is taking point. Some of the orcs move to attack the fighter, others attempt to charge past the fighter to attack the rest of the party. If the DM handles each attack one by one, the player is left guessing after each one where the rest would go. However, since the orcs would be attacking at more or less at the same time, the fighter would see a group of orcs attacking the party. Being a trained combatant, it shouldn't be difficult for him to determine which ones would be moving to attack him, and which would be staring past him while charging at his team mates. Why would this be significant? Without combat reflexes, that fighter gets one shot at an attack of opportunity before those orcs attack his allies. By being able to see where the orcs are heading as a group, instead of being resolved one by one, the player can make a choice for that one attack based off of what his character would be able to see. This works the other way around as well. How you play out combat change change how you view the simultaneous activity taking place. In fact, this is the way it goes almost every time. You interpret the mechanical aspects of combat in a realistic way. The fighter didn't take 30 points of fire damage; instead his arm was very nearly scorched by the fireball. You usually don't decide on the mechanical effects based on what you want the reality to be. The game mechanics provide a framework on which you build interpretations. Of course, the game mechanics aren't perfect, and certain situations warrant special calls, as made evident by the DMG. However, if you have a better understanding of what those game mechanics represent, then you can give better descriptions of those actions.
Marcus Majarra 12-18-07, 01:50 AM	And here we have yet another Marcus addition to the rules. Now it's characters taking turns to complete their actions. Show me this statement in RAW Marcus, then we'll talk. Oh, for crying out loud! The RAW is self-contradictory! On one hand, you have the RAW stating that combat actions are sequential and that no two creatures act at the same time. On the other hand, you have the RAW stating that activity is simultaneous. What I'm trying to do is an exercise in consolidating both approaches and giving them equal value. Why is it that you ignore that there is an order of play? Why do you ignore that rounds are relative to any and every initiative count there is? Both of these belong to the RAW, but you're dismissing them based on sections of the book that don't even address the way to play the game, but on what the designers would've liked to go on, despite the fact that the system doesn't work that way. It's kind of interesting how you keep using the term coherence to justify your arguments. It's a useful enough word. If something fits your view, you can call it coherent. If not, then you call it incoherent. But never do you actually state what makes it so. You see a series of excemption cases. What I see is an understanding of the underlying principles of combat in DnD. I thought it might have been obvious. Do you know what an exception is? By definition, an exception is an instance or case not belonging to the general rule. When the DM has to make specific rulings that differ from what the rules state, he's making an exception. The example with the delayed trap in the DMG shows this. This is why making a general rule based on exceptions doesn't make sense. The exceptions exist BECAUSE there's an underlying rule. If combat were truly simultaneous, there would be no need to suggest that the DM make exceptions when necessary, since simultaneity would be the norm. And here, we see how the application of that understanding is lacking. If the DM has all the orcs acting on the same initiative, he can decide that orc #1 and #2 will both decide to attack the same PC. Even if the first orc manages to kill the PC, the second orc would have been heading to that same PC at more or less the same time. It's quite conceivable that he second orc would still follow through on his attack. Remember, one attack roll does not mean one strike with the weapon. Before orc #1 could land that killing blow, the second orc, acting at more or less the same time, would also reach the PC and begin his attack. When you come down to it, nothing states that the DM needs to finish one orcs actions before moving on to the next. Just that he typically resolves them on a single turn. A DM could very well take care of all the move actions of the orcs first, and then resolve the attacks. Imagine a large group of orcs attacking the party. The fighter is taking point. Some of the orcs move to attack the fighter, others attempt to charge past the fighter to attack the rest of the party. If the DM handles each attack one by one, the player is left guessing after each one where the rest would go. However, since the orcs would be attacking at more or less at the same time, the fighter would see a group of orcs attacking the party. Being a trained combatant, it shouldn't be difficult for him to determine which ones would be moving to attack him, and which would be staring past him while charging at his team mates. Why would this be significant? Without combat reflexes, that fighter gets one shot at an attack of opportunity before those orcs attack his allies. By being able to see where the orcs are heading as a group, instead of being resolved one by one, the player can make a choice for that one attack based off of what his character would be able to see. I could say the same thing for you. You're failing to understand one of the fundamental principles of DnD combat: true simultaneity does not exist because of RAW facts: 1) Initiative counts occur at different times. 2) A dead character cannot act, even if his turn comes up after dying. 3) Rounds are relative to initiative counts. Since we know that a round is a span of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round, we know what doesn't belong to one round and what belongs to it. We know that there's a round from initiatives [15,15[. We also know that there's a round from initiatives [20,20[. At some points, these rounds overlap, but at some times, they will be completely dissociated. What you believe to be simultaneity is actually an overlap, as made evident by these facts. No, this isn't textually written in the RAW, but you don't need a degree in advanced math to know that initiative 20 happens before initiative 15 and that whatever takes place on initiative 20 will not take place in the round starting on the next count of initiative 15. So much for simultaneity. However, if you have a better understanding of what those game mechanics represent, then you can give better descriptions of those actions. You should listen to your own advice and have a better understanding of what it means to have a sequential order of play and different times for various initiatives. Then, you'll have a better understanding of what the designers mean by simultaneous. In the mean time, here's a dilemma for you: In the same round... Init 20: fighter makes melee full attack against orc Init 19: orc moves away well beyond melee reach If both are acting simultaneously, how is this physically possible?
weasel0 12-18-07, 02:40 AM	Hence, "more or less."
Ace_of_time 12-18-07, 10:19 AM	Oh, for crying out loud! The RAW is self-contradictory! On one hand, you have the RAW stating that combat actions are sequential and that no two creatures act at the same time. On the other hand, you have the RAW stating that activity is simultaneous. What I'm trying to do is an exercise in consolidating both approaches and giving them equal value. Why is it that you ignore that there is an order of play? Why do you ignore that rounds are relative to any and every initiative count there is? Both of these belong to the RAW, but you're dismissing them based on sections of the book that don't even address the way to play the game, but on what the designers would've liked to go on, despite the fact that the system doesn't work that way. I thought it might have been obvious. Do you know what an exception is? By definition, an exception is an instance or case not belonging to the general rule. When the DM has to make specific rulings that differ from what the rules state, he's making an exception. The example with the delayed trap in the DMG shows this. This is why making a general rule based on exceptions doesn't make sense. The exceptions exist BECAUSE there's an underlying rule. If combat were truly simultaneous, there would be no need to suggest that the DM make exceptions when necessary, since simultaneity would be the norm. I could say the same thing for you. You're failing to understand one of the fundamental principles of DnD combat: true simultaneity does not exist because of RAW facts: 1) Initiative counts occur at different times. 2) A dead character cannot act, even if his turn comes up after dying. 3) Rounds are relative to initiative counts. Since we know that a round is a span of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round, we know what doesn't belong to one round and what belongs to it. We know that there's a round from initiatives [15,15[. We also know that there's a round from initiatives [20,20[. At some points, these rounds overlap, but at some times, they will be completely dissociated. What you believe to be simultaneity is actually an overlap, as made evident by these facts. No, this isn't textually written in the RAW, but you don't need a degree in advanced math to know that initiative 20 happens before initiative 15 and that whatever takes place on initiative 20 will not take place in the round starting on the next count of initiative 15. So much for simultaneity. You should listen to your own advice and have a better understanding of what it means to have a sequential order of play and different times for various initiatives. Then, you'll have a better understanding of what the designers mean by simultaneous. In the mean time, here's a dilemma for you: In the same round... Init 20: fighter makes melee full attack against orc Init 19: orc moves away well beyond melee reach If both are acting simultaneously, how is this physically possible? Well here it says that is called Initiative order. Silly me.INITIATIVE Initiative Checks: At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other. Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity. Inaction: Even if you can’t take actions, you retain your initiative score for the duration of the encounter. And here it is again, THE COMBAT ROUND Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.WOW here again It says from highest to lowest init count in a round. I suppose you'll say I'll need it explain how that fits in the way I think. And in that first part you forgot the first part of that statement. It should have said, " According to me, The RAW is self-contradictory!" "In the same round... Init 20: fighter makes melee full attack against orc Init 19: orc moves away well beyond melee reach If both are acting simultaneously, how is this physically possible?" Because the fighter does all his attacks before the orc moves and gets AoO for moving out of his threated space. It wouldn't even matter about the full attck if the orc is killed during the AoO.
BoringInfoGuy 12-18-07, 06:43 PM	Oh, for crying out loud! The RAW is self-contradictory! On one hand, you have the RAW stating that combat actions are sequential and that no two creatures act at the same time. On the other hand, you have the RAW stating that activity is simultaneous. What I'm trying to do is an exercise in consolidating both approaches and giving them equal value. Why is it that you ignore that there is an order of play? Why do you ignore that rounds are relative to any and every initiative count there is? Both of these belong to the RAW, but you're dismissing them based on sections of the book that don't even address the way to play the game, but on what the designers would've liked to go on, despite the fact that the system doesn't work that way. The part that you keep missing is that the Players are taking turns, the Characters are acting simultaneously. You see a conflict because you keep trying to force the characters into turns as well. I thought it might have been obvious. Do you know what an exception is? By definition, an exception is an instance or case not belonging to the general rule. When the DM has to make specific rulings that differ from what the rules state, he's making an exception. The example with the delayed trap in the DMG shows this. This is why making a general rule based on exceptions doesn't make sense. The exceptions exist BECAUSE there's an underlying rule. If combat were truly simultaneous, there would be no need to suggest that the DM make exceptions when necessary, since simultaneity would be the norm. And yet, the DMG gives a general rule for making those exemptions. I could say the same thing for you. You're failing to understand one of the fundamental principles of DnD combat: true simultaneity does not exist because of RAW facts: 1) Initiative counts occur at different times. 2) A dead character cannot act, even if his turn comes up after dying. 3) Rounds are relative to initiative counts. Since we know that a round is a span of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round, we know what doesn't belong to one round and what belongs to it. We know that there's a round from initiatives [15,15[. We also know that there's a round from initiatives [20,20[. At some points, these rounds overlap, but at some times, they will be completely dissociated. Which again shows your inability to separate out the difference between the Players and the characters. What you believe to be simultaneity is actually an overlap, as made evident by these facts. No, this isn't textually written in the RAW, but you don't need a degree in advanced math to know that initiative 20 happens before initiative 15 and that whatever takes place on initiative 20 will not take place in the round starting on the next count of initiative 15. So much for simultaneity. With nothing in RAW to support your claims, you are left with playing with semantics. But there is something rather hilarious about you trying to make this claim to me. You should listen to your own advice and have a better understanding of what it means to have a sequential order of play and different times for various initiatives. Then, you'll have a better understanding of what the designers mean by simultaneous. This from the guy who keeps trying to come up with a rational to dismiss any part of RAW that doesn't fit his views. In the mean time, here's a dilemma for you: In the same round... Init 20: fighter makes melee full attack against orc Init 19: orc moves away well beyond melee reach If both are acting simultaneously, how is this physically possible? This you consider a dilemma? Start off with going back to RAW. We find that the melee attack roll represents if whether, over the course of several attacks, you manage to land a solid blow on your opponent. That landing blow could come at the beginning, end, or middle of the series of attacks. Likewise, the full attack option lets a character land multiple blows. The only particular restriction is that you take your attack rolls in order of highest to lowest BAB. Each attack still represents if one of a series of blows manages to connect. While there is a natural assumption that the blows are fairly evenly spaced, there is nothing to actually indicate that this is always the case. So the fighter could possibly have his blows land early in the attack. This is assuming that the fighter managed to successfully attack the orc. If his attacks missed, then having the orc move out of reach gives us a reason for those attacks to have missed. This is limited to looking at things from the fighters perspective. If we consider the orcs actions, that adds more to what is going on. No reason was supplied for the orc to move away from the fighter. If we assume that the orc was moving away to attack a more vulnerable target, then we can say that the orc was splitting his attention from the fighter, making it easier for the fighter to land blows. Even without that, we do know that the orc is not trying to fight back. The Fighter is not having to worry about blocking the orcs attacks, letting him focus more on offense. (The orc may very well be threatening the fighter with his weapon, but the orc is not following through on his attacks.) The only hard part about this "dilemma" is the lack of details that would be inherent to an actual combat. (At least, in the games I've played in. I can't speak for your games) Let's consider it this way. The DM was planning to have the orc attack the player's fighter. But the Player succeeds on all of his attack rolls, and severely wounds the orc. The DM decides that the orc is demoralized, and attempts to retreat. Here's how the DM could describe the round. DM: Your blow strikes the orc in chest, biting deeply. Enraged, the orc raises his weapon to attack, but that left him open. Your second blow slices across his belly. The orc, his confidence shattered, forgets about attacking you and seeks to escape. Has he pulls away from you, you manage to land two more blows, one on his chest, the other his back, prompting him to hurry away from you.
Ace_of_time 12-18-07, 08:03 PM	Here you go. joseph, For the purposes of making Attacks of Opportunity, one per round means, from your current initiative count until the next time you come up in initiative order, you may make one Attack of Opportunity. Good Gaming! I just use every 6 second because of reason noted before.
mvincent 12-18-07, 08:20 PM	I'm still not sure as to what this means for the loser, though. I don't think I'll stop being usually right when responding to rules counseling questions on this forum if I'm wrong on this issue, just like you'll still be usually right doing the same very same thing.Again, by wagering geek-cred, it means that the loser has no right to argue against the victor (i.e. the victor does not have to suffer the arguments of the loser, on any topic). Sure, one can always quote text and hope others derive their own conclusions from it (I normally try to do this anyway)... but in discussions involving both partys, the loser could never again argue against the winner.
Ace_of_time 12-18-07, 09:10 PM	They haven't post in a while. They might have got the same answer and decided not too.
BoringInfoGuy 12-18-07, 09:51 PM	I have no problem with how you play. My arguments were merely for what RAW states, not an attempt to force you to play that way. Too bad I didn't actually join in the geek cred bet. Personally, I felt the the RotG article clinched it. So it seemed poor form to join at that point. But when Marcus kept arguing, there was no reason not to. Aw well. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Good gaming all.
Marcus Majarra 12-18-07, 10:24 PM	Again, by wagering geek-cred, it means that the loser has no right to argue against the victor (i.e. the victor does not have to suffer the arguments of the loser, on any topic). Sure, one can always quote text and hope others derive their own conclusions from it (I normally try to do this anyway)... but in discussions involving both partys, the loser could never again argue against the winner. Okay, now I get it. In other words, if the both of us are participating in a discussion, and the loser feels the winner is in the wrong, the loser cannot explicitly move to dismiss whatever the winner is stating. Then, again, can the winner do the opposite? If so, isn't this a little counterproductive? And in that first part you forgot the first part of that statement. It should have said, " According to me, The RAW is self-contradictory!" It's not according to me. It's written as such. You can't have something going on simultaneously in order. For something to be simultaneous, it has to happen at the same time. If things are happening in order, they're not happening at the same time. They're happening one after the other. My claim wasn't an opinion, you know. It was merely stating the obvious. Because the fighter does all his attacks before the orc moves and gets AoO for moving out of his threated space. If that's the case, how can you argue that the fighter is acting at the same time (simultaneously) as the orc, since the fighter is completely done with his full attack before the orc starts moving? With nothing in RAW to support your claims, you are left with playing with semantics. LOL. Nothing in the RAW? RAW states that rounds are segments of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round. This is on PHB p138. Thus, a round is a segment of time between initiative 15 in one round and initiative 15 in the next round. Initiative 14 in the next round doesn't belong to this round. Since we're dealing with elements of time, if something doesn't belong to this particular segment of time, then it either has to come before this segment or after this segment. Obviously, initiative 14 in the next round doesn't occur before this segment of time. This means that initiative 14 occurs AFTER this segment of time. Since we know for a fact that initiative 18 in the next round does belong to this segment of time (see PHB p138), we can claim as a fact that initiative 14 in the next round occurs later than initiative 18 in the next round, both in the order of play and in the game world. Not any RAW support... please, don't ridicule me. This from the guy who keeps trying to come up with a rational to dismiss any part of RAW that doesn't fit his views. Don't get confused. This is what you are doing. You're arguing merely from the idea that a round's activity is simultaneous, and single-handedly disregarding everything in the RAW that states otherwise (and there is plenty of that going on, too). At least I've tried to consolidate both approaches by suggesting that actions actually represent the completion of your round's activity. Did you even take the time to read my explanation, or are you just dismissing it as a whole because the authors didn't bother to explain what they meant by simultaneous? This is assuming that the fighter managed to successfully attack the orc. If his attacks missed, then having the orc move out of reach gives us a reason for those attacks to have missed. This has no support. If the orc's movement were a reason for the fighter's lack of accuracy, there should be consistent evidence of this. As it is, the fighter's ability to hit remains the same, regardless of the actions the orc will take. What you're doing here is called a circular argument; it's a common logical fallacy. This is limited to looking at things from the fighters perspective. If we consider the orcs actions, that adds more to what is going on. No reason was supplied for the orc to move away from the fighter. If we assume that the orc was moving away to attack a more vulnerable target, then we can say that the orc was splitting his attention from the fighter, making it easier for the fighter to land blows. Even without that, we do know that the orc is not trying to fight back. The Fighter is not having to worry about blocking the orcs attacks, letting him focus more on offense. (The orc may very well be threatening the fighter with his weapon, but the orc is not following through on his attacks.) The only hard part about this "dilemma" is the lack of details that would be inherent to an actual combat. (At least, in the games I've played in. I can't speak for your games) The orc's reasons for performing his actions have no weight on the fighter's actions, since the orc's actions are resolved after the fighter is done acting. The orc could be simply making a strategic withdraw, and this would have no influence over the fighter's full attack action. Whether the orc attacks, runs away, withdraws, casts a spell, or performs any other action when his turn comes up doesn't change the fighter's action at all. Let's consider it this way. The DM was planning to have the orc attack the player's fighter. But the Player succeeds on all of his attack rolls, and severely wounds the orc. The DM decides that the orc is demoralized, and attempts to retreat. Here's how the DM could describe the round. DM: Your blow strikes the orc in chest, biting deeply. Enraged, the orc raises his weapon to attack, but that left him open. Your second blow slices across his belly. The orc, his confidence shattered, forgets about attacking you and seeks to escape. Has he pulls away from you, you manage to land two more blows, one on his chest, the other his back, prompting him to hurry away from you. And here is where your entire reasoning breaks down. You're proposing that a round's activity happens simultaneously. In other words, it all occurs at the same time. However, you're clearly demonstrating that the fighter managed to complete his entire action before the orc started moving away. How can the fighter attack the orc at the same time the orc is moving away, especially considering that the fighter's action (full-round) should take more time than the orc's action (move)? Sheer logic demands that the orc is beyond reach before the fighter is done with half of his action. Thank you for demonstrating how actions are not simultaneous.
BoringInfoGuy 12-19-07, 12:25 AM	deleted
BoringInfoGuy 12-19-07, 01:55 AM	LOL. Nothing in the RAW? RAW states that rounds are segments of time between one round and the same initiative count in the next round. This is on PHB p138. Thus, a round is a segment of time between initiative 15 in one round and initiative 15 in the next round. Initiative 14 in the next round doesn't belong to this round. Since we're dealing with elements of time, if something doesn't belong to this particular segment of time, then it either has to come before this segment or after this segment. Obviously, initiative 14 in the next round doesn't occur before this segment of time. This means that initiative 14 occurs AFTER this segment of time. Since we know for a fact that initiative 18 in the next round does belong to this segment of time (see PHB p138), we can claim as a fact that initiative 14 in the next round occurs later than initiative 18 in the next round, both in the order of play and in the game world. Not any RAW support... please, don't ridicule me. What is so hilarious is a couple of things. First, you have not proved that actions are not simultaneous. All you've done is shown that they are asynchronous. Second, you must not remember this, but you are now arguing for one of my points from earlier. Remember back in post 36, I explained how rounds are: Cleric - 20 : Round 1 starts for Cleric Creature A - 18 : Round 1 starts for Creature A Rogue - 17 : Round 1 starts for Rogue Goblin -15 : Round 1 starts for Goblin Fighter - 14 : Round 1 starts for Fighter Orc - 13 : Round 1 starts for Orc Creature B - 10 : Round 1 starts for Creature B Wizard - 5 : Round 1 starts for Wizard Round 1 ends for Cleric Cleric - 20 : Round 2 starts for Cleric Round 1 ends for Creature A. Creature A - 18: Round 2 starts for Creature A Round 1 ends for Rogue Rogue - 17 : Round 2 starts for Rogue Round 1 ends for Goblin Goblin -15 : Round 2 starts for Goblin. Round 1 ends for Fighter. Fighter - 14 : Round 2 starts for Fighter. Round 1 ends for Orc Orc - 13 : Round 2 starts for Orc. Round 1 ends for Creature B. Creature B - 10 : Round 2 starts for Creature B. Round 1 ends for Wizard. 2 Wizard - 5 : Round 2 starts for Wizard. Visually, you can think of it this way: Clr CrA Rog Gob Ftr Orc CrB Wiz 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Left to right is initiative order, top to bottom shows when each character starts and ends each round. And if you look, you see that even if the characters are on different rounds, they are still taking actions simultaneously with everyone else. Don't get confused. This is what you are doing. You're arguing merely from the idea that a round's activity is simultaneous, and single-handedly disregarding everything in the RAW that states otherwise (and there is plenty of that going on, too). At least I've tried to consolidate both approaches by suggesting that actions actually represent the completion of your round's activity. Did you even take the time to read my explanation, or are you just dismissing it as a whole because the authors didn't bother to explain what they meant by simultaneous? Like Attack of Opportunities, they explained it quite well. I'm arguing that the players are taking turns, but the characters are not. Which is what is explained in the PHB, DMG and Rules of the Game, All About Initiative. All the "evidence" you can claim comes from only looking at things from the player's perspective, and then trying to limit the characters to that perspective. As for your consolidation approach that you argue from, don't you see the inherent flaw? Well no, I guess not. Let me spell it out for you. What you are doing - again - is taking an idea that is not in RAW, and arguing it as if it is part of the Rules as Written. Last time it was a 6 second cooldown, this time it's that actions actually represent the completion of your round's activity. Since these statements are not supported by RAW, the very foundation for your argument is weak. Without a firm foundation, your arguments crumble around you. This has no support. If the orc's movement were a reason for the fighter's lack of accuracy, there should be consistent evidence of this. As it is, the fighter's ability to hit remains the same, regardless of the actions the orc will take. What you're doing here is called a circular argument; it's a common logical fallacy. What I'm doing here is looking at the turn based action of the players, and describing the simultaneous action of the characters. Which is a concept that still seems to allude your grasp. The orc's reasons for performing his actions have no weight on the fighter's actions, since the orc's actions are resolved after the fighter is done acting. The orc could be simply making a strategic withdraw, and this would have no influence over the fighter's full attack action. Whether the orc attacks, runs away, withdraws, casts a spell, or performs any other action when his turn comes up doesn't change the fighter's action at all. Again, the difference is between the turn based play of the players and the simultaneous actions of the characters. The DM resolves the actions for the Orc after the DM and Player have resolved the actions for the Fighter. The Fighter and the Orc on the other hand, are acting at more or less the same time. So the actions of the Orc would effect the actions of the Fighter. You are still trying to limit how the orc and fighter act based on how the player and DM resolve combat. And here is where your entire reasoning breaks down. You're proposing that a round's activity happens simultaneously. In other words, it all occurs at the same time. Almost. You have a problem with nuance. The characters are not taking turns. They are all acting at the same time. You've taken this to mean that they are also acting synchronously. The Rules of the Game Article "All About Intiative" helps clarify this when it uses the description "more or less." And I've already stated how I see rounds working, way back in post 36. However, you're clearly demonstrating that the fighter managed to complete his entire action before the orc started moving away. Actually, I described the fighter has managing to make his attacks while the orc was moving away. How can the fighter attack the orc at the same time the orc is moving away, especially considering that the fighter's action (full-round) should take more time than the orc's action (move)? Start off with going back to RAW. We find that the melee attack roll represents if whether, over the course of several attacks, you manage to land a solid blow on your opponent. That landing blow could come at the beginning, end, or middle of the series of attacks. Likewise, the full attack option lets a character land multiple blows. The only particular restriction is that you take your attack rolls in order of highest to lowest BAB. Each attack still represents if one of a series of blows manages to connect. While there is a natural assumption that the blows are fairly evenly spaced, there is nothing to actually indicate that this is always the case. So the fighter could possibly have his blows land early in the attack. Sheer logic demands that the orc is beyond reach before the fighter is done with half of his action. I notice that your "Sheer logic" needed to ignore that I based my description off of the RAW description of attack rolls. And while I didn't make mention of it at the time, I also pulled from the RAW description of how characters defend themselves. Thank you for demonstrating how actions are not simultaneous. Thank you for demonstrating your continued inability to understand simple concepts.
Ace_of_time 12-19-07, 05:30 PM	This is only funny because they have already post that they use Init count refresh any way. And is just argueing what he thinks it should be. I could just ask WOTC again but really what is the point. It even says in the Rule Comp.
Marcus Majarra 12-20-07, 03:15 AM	If it weren't for the personal remarks, I would actually enjoy discussing these issues with you, BoringInfoGuy. Perhaps you should consider changing your handle to RudeInfoGuy. What is so hilarious is a couple of things. First, you have not proved that actions are not simultaneous. All you've done is shown that they are asynchronous. You know, there's an inherent problem in the use of the word simultaneous. While it implies that whatever is simultaneous is also in perfect synchronicity, it is no guarantee thereof. This said, I do agree with you. Actions are not synchronized with one another. This does not prevent them from overlapping with one another, creating the so-called simultaneity the writers had intended. Like Attack of Opportunities, they explained it quite well. I'm arguing that the players are taking turns, but the characters are not. Which is what is explained in the PHB, DMG and Rules of the Game, All About Initiative. All the "evidence" you can claim comes from only looking at things from the player's perspective, and then trying to limit the characters to that perspective. I never said characters were taking turns. I said that their actions we not simultaneous based on the assumption that this simultaneity also implied synchronicity. As for your consolidation approach that you argue from, don't you see the inherent flaw? Well no, I guess not. Let me spell it out for you. What you are doing - again - is taking an idea that is not in RAW, and arguing it as if it is part of the Rules as Written. Last time it was a 6 second cooldown, this time it's that actions actually represent the completion of your round's activity. Since these statements are not supported by RAW, the very foundation for your argument is weak. Without a firm foundation, your arguments crumble around you. Then again, your own statements are not based on the RAW. You're doing the same thing I'm doing: interpreting what's written. In any case, my statements do have RAW support. 1) On AoOs becoming available one round after use: both in the OOG and IG perspectives, we can safely state that the AoO is almost in synchronicity with the action that provoked the AoO in the first place, correct? After all, it was the provoking character's action that triggered the AoO. If the AoO's attack roll represents a series of attempts to strike the target, it becomes evident that the AoO is actually a series of attacks that took place during the provoking character's actions, which technically take place over the course of the round of the provoking character. If, as you stated on post 36, the provoking character's action takes place between two successive initiative counts of 15, for example, then the AoO is also taking place during this span of time or slightly earlier, but not to the point that the AoO and the provoking character's action don't overlap on the most part. Since your AoO is then taking place during the course of a round, it becomes evident as to why you shouldn't get to make another until this round is elapsed. Of course, I can and do very well accept the CustServ ruling above, and I hope to confirm it when I receive my own response. 2) On the completion of activity with actions: there's a part of RAW and a part of common sense involved here. From a RAW standpoint, an action that is resolved later cannot modify the outcome of an action resolved earlier. This fact is independent from whatever interpretation anyone chooses to make of how the activity is taking place simultaneously. After all, if the fighter makes a melee full attack against an orc, and the orc's action is resolved after the fighter's, nothing the orc can do will actually change the actions that were resolved. If the fighter hits three times, the orc could then opt to attack the fighter, or run away, or safely withdraw, and the three hits the fighter landed would still remain. No matter how you choose to describe the scene, the fighter managed to effectively wear down the orc with three attacks, regardless of how many attacks the fighter could manage to land. If we argue that activity starts on the character's turn, which is not concretely supported by the RAW, it stands to reason that the outcome of your actions could be modified by actions that occur later. RAW does not allow for this, as I explained here. Curiously, what the RAW actually state is that "when a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions." The question we need to ask here is: which round are we referring to? From what I read on post 36, you're assuming that this round is the one starting on the character's turn. I propose that this round is the one ending on the character's turn. Here's my reasoning: A. If this round is the one ending on the character's turn, we find that it's now impossible to modify the outcome of past actions with more recent actions, both IG and OOG. After all, if your turn occurs later than another's, even if you had intended to prevent someone else from doing something, you didn't get to finish going through with it in time to prevent the other combatant from doing whatever he was doing. You were done with your actions later. B. What about the first round of combat? If your round's activity starts on your turn, this leaves us with a span of complete inaction before your first turn comes up. On the other hand, if your turn represents the end of your activity for a round, we suddenly find that you were indeed trying to do something from the start of combat until your turn came up. This proves to be consistent when you take into consideration that certain combatants are able to make AoOs before their first turn (such as those with Combat Reflexes or those under the effects of the foresight spell), especially with the CustServ ruling that stipulates that AoOs are parts of the actions you're entitled to in the time span leading to your turn. Since you're allowed to make one AoO per round, the span of time before your first turn certainly constitutes a round during which it's possible for you to act. C. AoOs. If your activity starts when you make your actions, during your turn, and that this activity is likely to provoke AoOs, why wouldn't it be possible for someone to be entitled to an AoO at any time between your current turn, and the next one? RAW doesn't allow for this. The only way for AoOs to be consistent is to have them take place before you're done with your activity, which is consistent with the RAW. Since you don't provoke AoOs after performing your action, it stands to reason that your action would be complete when you make it. What I'm doing here is looking at the turn based action of the players, and describing the simultaneous action of the characters. Which is a concept that still seems to allude your grasp. Except that your descriptions do not match the activity going on. No matter what the orc does, whatever the fighter does remains a constant. Again, the difference is between the turn based play of the players and the simultaneous actions of the characters. The DM resolves the actions for the Orc after the DM and Player have resolved the actions for the Fighter. The Fighter and the Orc on the other hand, are acting at more or less the same time. So the actions of the Orc would effect the actions of the Fighter. You are still trying to limit how the orc and fighter act based on how the player and DM resolve combat. I'm not limiting anything. I'm merely stating facts. From the POV of the actions resolved by the players and the DM, is there anything the orc could've done on its turn that would've changed the outcome of the fighter's attack? No. What activity you describe will be an illustration of the actions that took place. There's no sense in stating that the orc's actions influenced the fighter's when this is an actual impossibility. I'm not the one limiting your description; it's the very way the game is played. If the system allowed for later actions to modify the outcome of earlier actions, don't you think there would've been a single mention of this in the RAW. On the other hand, we do have RAW example of earlier actions affecting the outcome of later actions: AoOs and readied actions. Oh, and keep in mind: while the orc and the fighter are acting more or less at the same time, they're not synchronized with one another. Whatever the fighter is doing will start and end sooner than the start and end of the orc's activity. Both IG and OOG. Almost. You have a problem with nuance. The characters are not taking turns. They are all acting at the same time. You've taken this to mean that they are also acting synchronously. The Rules of the Game Article "All About Intiative" helps clarify this when it uses the description "more or less." And I've already stated how I see rounds working, way back in post 36. You're right, and thank you for the reference to post 36. Likewise, the full attack option lets a character land multiple blows. The only particular restriction is that you take your attack rolls in order of highest to lowest BAB. Each attack still represents if one of a series of blows manages to connect. While there is a natural assumption that the blows are fairly evenly spaced, there is nothing to actually indicate that this is always the case. So the fighter could possibly have his blows land early in the attack. I have to disagree with this conclusion, mostly based on the idea that if you're able to land so many hits in a narrower window of time, there's nothing to prevent you from using the remaining time to land more hits on other targets. It seems more likely that the fighter could've simply started hitting faster when he realized the orc was moving away, and compensated with the extra speed with more downtime. The end result would be that the fighter's full-round action was an even or uneven distribution between offense and recovering his breath for the effort, for example.
Ace_of_time 12-20-07, 03:03 PM	WotC has even put the "At the same time" thing in an Official release. That is just the way it is. If you have a problem with their system you should really take it up with them. But all the Official takes on it is that it is ''At the same time" More or Less.
BoringInfoGuy 12-20-07, 06:43 PM	If it weren't for the personal remarks, I would actually enjoy discussing these issues with you, BoringInfoGuy. Perhaps you should consider changing your handle to RudeInfoGuy. I have to say this post surprised me. Not this comment, I'm being rude and I know it. But that what follows actually is a discussion of the issues from my last post. This is not what I've come to expect. What I do expect is for you to use any pretext available to dismiss my arguments. This thread long ago devolved from a discussion of ideas to an attempt to prove the other guy wrong. I prefer debate to argument, sparring to fighting. When the first thing I'm looking for when I read someone's post is how to disagree with them, then there is a problem. Which is what I have been doing recently. This thread has not been one that I've enjoyed posting in for some time. If you really are interested in continuing this thread as a discussion, then I would enjoy doing so as well.
Marcus Majarra 12-20-07, 09:32 PM	To be honest, I feel we've strayed far from the purpose of this thread. I don't expect to participate any further, except to post whatever reply I receive from CustServ, so that mvincent can archive this thread, and merely point everyone in the direction of the last post, should anyone ask this (oh-so awful!) question again. This said, I will bring my discussions here to the 4E Rules forums. While I can't do much to clarify or even change 3E, we might as well get things completely clear in time for the next iteration of the game. I have to say this post surprised me. Not this comment, I'm being rude and I know it. But that what follows actually is a discussion of the issues from my last post. This is not what I've come to expect. What I do expect is for you to use any pretext available to dismiss my arguments. This thread long ago devolved from a discussion of ideas to an attempt to prove the other guy wrong. I'd like to think I have a track record of being usually right. This said, usually doesn't equate to universally, and I accept my fallibility. I'm both a patient and reasonable person, but I sometimes lose track.
BoringInfoGuy 12-22-07, 11:26 AM	Sorry, I started this post before your last post. Even though you don't want to participate further, I didn't want my work to be wasted. So I finished and posted. You know, there's an inherent problem in the use of the word simultaneous. While it implies that whatever is simultaneous is also in perfect synchronicity, it is no guarantee thereof. This said, I do agree with you. Actions are not synchronized with one another. This does not prevent them from overlapping with one another, creating the so-called simultaneity the writers had intended. I never said characters were taking turns. I said that their actions we not simultaneous based on the assumption that this simultaneity also implied synchronicity. Actually, you did say this: In a way, characters are still taking turns to complete their actions. The use of the verb complete is intentional here, as it's probably one of the better ways to illustrate simultaneous activity with differential activity resolution. You are still trying to base the character actions in turn based activity. Then again, your own statements are not based on the RAW. You're doing the same thing I'm doing: interpreting what's written. In any case, my statements do have RAW support. That is what we all do. Look at the Rules as Written, from which we get the Rules as Interpreted. Which we hope is as close to the Rules as Intended as possible. 1) On AoOs becoming available one round after use: both in the OOG and IG perspectives, we can safely state that the AoO is almost in synchronicity with the action that provoked the AoO in the first place, correct? After all, it was the provoking character's action that triggered the AoO. If the AoO's attack roll represents a series of attempts to strike the target, it becomes evident that the AoO is actually a series of attacks that took place during the provoking character's actions, which technically take place over the course of the round of the provoking character. If, as you stated on post 36, the provoking character's action takes place between two successive initiative counts of 15, for example, then the AoO is also taking place during this span of time or slightly earlier, but not to the point that the AoO and the provoking character's action don't overlap on the most part. Since your AoO is then taking place during the course of a round, it becomes evident as to why you shouldn't get to make another until this round is elapsed. A standard attack roll represents a series of attacks. However, an Attack of Opportunity is instead a single melee attack. (In the PHB, page 137). Therefore, the Attack of Opportunity is not lasting throughout the entire round. Also, remember that Attacks of Opportunity take place before the action that provokes them. This is most evident when taking an AoO against an opponent that is getting up from being prone. Getting up provokes and AoO. But the AoO takes place before the character gets up. You can't trip a prone opponent. So you can't use your AoO to trip him again. If the AoO lasted throughout the entire round that provoked it, you would be able to use you AoO to trip him again. Of course, I can and do very well accept the CustServ ruling above, and I hope to confirm it when I receive my own response. Considering the situation, in your place I would want to verify the ruling myself. It's pretty easy for me to accept Ace's statement since what he posted went against how he did it, and matched what I've been saying. 2) On the completion of activity with actions: there's a part of RAW and a part of common sense involved here. From a RAW standpoint, an action that is resolved later cannot modify the outcome of an action resolved earlier. This fact is independent from whatever interpretation anyone chooses to make of how the activity is taking place simultaneously. After all, if the fighter makes a melee full attack against an orc, and the orc's action is resolved after the fighter's, nothing the orc can do will actually change the actions that were resolved. If the fighter hits three times, the orc could then opt to attack the fighter, or run away, or safely withdraw, and the three hits the fighter landed would still remain. No matter how you choose to describe the scene, the fighter managed to effectively wear down the orc with three attacks, regardless of how many attacks the fighter could manage to land. I don't argue that the players and DM use a turn base system, or that this is necessary. But I believe that it is preferable to view things from an In Character perspective as much as possible. In particular, I do find that this change in view causes differences in how combat plays out. If we argue that activity starts on the character's turn, which is not concretely supported by the RAW, it stands to reason that the outcome of your actions could be modified by actions that occur later. RAW does not allow for this, as I explained here. Even in a pure RAW situation, later actions can alter previous ones. From the FAQ page 66 An attack of opportunity is adjudicated just like any other attack, and it is subject to the same rules (including provoking additional attacks of opportunity). This can lead to odd situations where as the reason for the original action no longer exists. If this starts to confuse you, just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every maneuver. Even the “sequential” nature of D&D combat—I make my attacks, then you make your attacks, then I make my attacks, and so forth—is an artificial creation used to keep combat moving quickly. Curiously, what the RAW actually state is that "when a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions." The question we need to ask here is: which round are we referring to? From what I read on post 36, you're assuming that this round is the one starting on the character's turn. I propose that this round is the one ending on the character's turn. Here's my reasoning: From the FAQ, Any full-round action takes place entirely during the acting character’s turn. That is, the action begins and ends during the acting character’s turn in the initiative order. Though taking a full-round action leaves you no time to move (except, possibly, a 5-foot step) it does not continue into the next round in the same way a spell with a casting time of 1 round does. A fullround action is quicker than a 1-round casting time. But keep in mind that earlier, we saw that the DnD rules handle combat in an abstract manner. A. If this round is the one ending on the character's turn, we find that it's now impossible to modify the outcome of past actions with more recent actions, both IG and OOG. After all, if your turn occurs later than another's, even if you had intended to prevent someone else from doing something, you didn't get to finish going through with it in time to prevent the other combatant from doing whatever he was doing. You were done with your actions later. You are trading "problems." You see an issue with the idea of idea of a character getting a full attack on a creature that is moving away. But switch the order of combat. Make it Orc 19, and Fighter 18. If the Orc just moved toward the fighter, how would the fighter get to make a full attack on the orc? In the simulatinous view, it's not too difficult to come up with a rational for the Fighter to get his full attack in a shorter amount of time against a retreating foe (more on that later). It's a bit harder to imagine the fighter getting his entire round of actions against a foe that just moved toward him and started attacking. B. What about the first round of combat? If your round's activity starts on your turn, this leaves us with a span of complete inaction before your first turn comes up. On the other hand, if your turn represents the end of your activity for a round, we suddenly find that you were indeed trying to do something from the start of combat until your turn came up. This proves to be consistent when you take into consideration that certain combatants are able to make AoOs before their first turn (such as those with Combat Reflexes or those under the effects of the foresight spell), especially with the CustServ ruling that stipulates that AoOs are parts of the actions you're entitled to in the time span leading to your turn. Since you're allowed to make one AoO per round, the span of time before your first turn certainly constitutes a round during which it's possible for you to act. What's happening before your first turn is described in the Rules of the Game The rules don't allow you to "take 20" or even "take 10" on an initiative check. Your initiative check result initially represents your character's ability to react when an encounter begins. (That's why characters are flat-footed until they take an action in an encounter's first round.) You have only one chance for an initial reaction to an encounter, and the rules don't allow you to prepare yourself for an encounter when you don't know it's coming. Which you will note fits with my description of being flat footed back in my first post on this forum, #18. C. AoOs. If your activity starts when you make your actions, during your turn, and that this activity is likely to provoke AoOs, why wouldn't it be possible for someone to be entitled to an AoO at any time between your current turn, and the next one? RAW doesn't allow for this. The only way for AoOs to be consistent is to have them take place before you're done with your activity, which is consistent with the RAW. Since you don't provoke AoOs after performing your action, it stands to reason that your action would be complete when you make it. The logic seems to go back and forth on this one to me. I'm just having trouble following what you mean here. Here is what I understand on the matter. In the sequential play, the players declare any attacks of opportunity during the turn of the creature that is preforming the provoking act. In the simultaneous action, the characters make the attack of opportunity when the provoking creature starts the action that provokes the AoO. Except that your descriptions do not match the activity going on. No matter what the orc does, whatever the fighter does remains a constant. Keep this in mind: just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every maneuver. My description is not matching the turn based play, but that play is not meant to be a direct representation of the characters action. I'm not limiting anything. I'm merely stating facts. From the POV of the actions resolved by the players and the DM, is there anything the orc could've done on its turn that would've changed the outcome of the fighter's attack? No. What activity you describe will be an illustration of the actions that took place. There's no sense in stating that the orc's actions influenced the fighter's when this is an actual impossibility. I'm not the one limiting your description; it's the very way the game is played. If the system allowed for later actions to modify the outcome of earlier actions, don't you think there would've been a single mention of this in the RAW. On the other hand, we do have RAW example of earlier actions affecting the outcome of later actions: AoOs and readied actions. By limitation I mean that you seem to be determined to apply a direct - as opposed to an abstract - relationship between the artificial turn base play we use to keep combat moving in a practical, non confusing manner and the simultaneous action of the characters. Oh, and keep in mind: while the orc and the fighter are acting more or less at the same time, they're not synchronized with one another. Whatever the fighter is doing will start and end sooner than the start and end of the orc's activity. Both IG and OOG. More or less. The abstract relationship makes this not completely 100% certain. Consider if the fighter is up against 5 orcs, all acting on the same initiative. The orcs would seem to be syncronized. But try to think of it as if you were watching this battle as a scene in a movie. What you would see would be more of a fast and furious exchange of blows, blocks, movements, reversals jumbled together in no clear order. We can't represent that the table in play. All we get is the fighter taking turns with the 5 orcs. But we can try to describe the action in a more exciting way. You're right, and thank you for the reference to post 36. You're welcome I have to disagree with this conclusion, mostly based on the idea that if you're able to land so many hits in a narrower window of time, there's nothing to prevent you from using the remaining time to land more hits on other targets. It seems more likely that the fighter could've simply started hitting faster when he realized the orc was moving away, and compensated with the extra speed with more downtime. The end result would be that the fighter's full-round action was an even or uneven distribution between offense and recovering his breath for the effort, for example. And now for the "more of this later" I mentioned earlier. While you don't like the reasoning I gave for the full attack on the retreating foe, you did come up with a rational that allows for the same thing. Someone else would come up with something else that works for them. The only thing that is important is if it is plausible enough to maintain the illusion of simultaneous combat. On a final note, I don't want to have this thread turn into the start of the Boring / Marcus grudge match. So you won't have to worry about me immediately attacking anything you write just because you wrote it.
Marcus Majarra 12-22-07, 03:43 PM	You are still trying to base the character actions in turn based activity. From a RAW point of view, I'm right in doing this. There's an important line to be drawn between actions and activity. In other words, an action exists only during a character's turn. Once the turn is over, the action is complete and its full effects carry on to subsequent turns. This is supported by the FAQ which you supply later in your post: "Any full-round action takes place entirely during the acting character’s turn. That is, the action begins and ends during the acting character’s turn in the initiative order." I see a round's activity as being different from an action in that an activity is an extended event that exists beyond simple turns and illustrates an extended version of actions. Which we hope is as close to the Rules as Intended as possible. In all honesty, I avoid to aim for the Rules As Intended approach, since it tends to result in Rules As We Want Them To Be more often than not. What I strive for is to find a way to consolidate all the RAW in a working fashion without changing the RAW itself. A standard attack roll represents a series of attacks. However, an Attack of Opportunity is instead a single melee attack. (In the PHB, page 137). Therefore, the Attack of Opportunity is not lasting throughout the entire round. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're contradicting yourself in claiming this. You recently brought up the fact that an attack roll represents a series of attacks. When you make an Attack of Opportunity, you're making an attack roll as a means to resolve it. If you stick to the idea that an AoO is a single attack, then you also need to stick to the idea that the standard action attack is also a single attack, as evidenced by PHB p139-140 (since making more than one attack requires the full attack action). In any case, the reasoning I used here was one formed from your own evidence. If an attack roll represents a series of attacks and you make an attack roll to resolve an AoO, then the AoO is the result of a series of attacks. Also, remember that Attacks of Opportunity take place before the action that provokes them. This is most evident when taking an AoO against an opponent that is getting up from being prone. Getting up provokes and AoO. But the AoO takes place before the character gets up. You can't trip a prone opponent. So you can't use your AoO to trip him again. If the AoO lasted throughout the entire round that provoked it, you would be able to use you AoO to trip him again. Not exactly. We can safely agree that you cannot trip an opponent who is in a prone position. If we conclude that, in getting up, the character is finished leaving the prone position at the end of his action, it becomes evident as to why the AoO cannot be used to trip the opponent. Since he won't be standing before his action is complete and your entire AoO is over and done with before the opponent is standing, it becomes a temporal impossibility for the opponent to be tripped with an AoO. To simplify, you can't trip him until he's done standing up. Since the AoO is completed before the opponent is standing up, the AoO cannot be used to trip. Considering the situation, in your place I would want to verify the ruling myself. It's pretty easy for me to accept Ace's statement since what he posted went against how he did it, and matched what I've been saying. I submitted my question to CustServ early this week. In all fairness, I also provided the three possible solutions we've discussed. I'll post the entire thing as soon as I get a response. I don't argue that the players and DM use a turn base system, or that this is necessary. But I believe that it is preferable to view things from an In Character perspective as much as possible. In particular, I do find that this change in view causes differences in how combat plays out. Even if this is not what you're arguing for, that is how the game is played. We cannot start to dismiss this aspect of gameplay because it doesn't fit your idea of what the in-character perspective is. This is the main reason I'm trying to consolidate both sequential resolution and simultaneous activity in a way that neither refutes the other. This consolidation has to be consistent both in the out-of-character and the in-character perspective. Even in a pure RAW situation, later actions can alter previous ones. From the FAQ page 66 I do not see how this exemplifies later actions altering previous actions. Attacks of opportunity are always resolved prior to the provoking actions. When an opponent leaves your threatened area, the AoO is done before the opponent leaves (as you might otherwise be unable to carry on the AoO for lack of reach). What you are showing is how an action that is declared later can modify one that's declared earlier. The thing is: the order of declaration doesn't affect the outcome of actions. The order of resolution does. This order of resolution remains consistent in that it is both sequential (in all cases) and prevents any later actions from modifying the outcome of earlier actions. You are trading "problems." You see an issue with the idea of idea of a character getting a full attack on a creature that is moving away. But switch the order of combat. Make it Orc 19, and Fighter 18. If the Orc just moved toward the fighter, how would the fighter get to make a full attack on the orc? In the simulatinous view, it's not too difficult to come up with a rational for the Fighter to get his full attack in a shorter amount of time against a retreating foe (more on that later). It's a bit harder to imagine the fighter getting his entire round of actions against a foe that just moved toward him and started attacking. That's a good point. It shows that, one way or the other, you have to make an abstraction of either when your round's activity begins or ends, in order to remain consistent with simultaneity. I prefer to make an abstraction of when actions begin, if only because we know that the full effects of actions are felt as soon as the action is resolved. In other words, we know that, if you take 5 points of damage, that damage exists and becomes a combat fact from the moment the damage is resolved. If your opponent deals this damage to you during his turn, it exists by the end of his turn and before the start of any others. For this to be a true fact, we can only assume that the activity is complete the moment the action is complete. How can you react to having taken 5 points of damage when the damage hasn't sunk in yet? What's happening before your first turn is described in the Rules of the Game <snip> Which you will note fits with my description of being flat footed back in my first post on this forum, #18. This doesn't contradict what I've stated. In fact, it is quite ambiguous. Since initiative measures your ability to react when an encounter begins, we learn nothing as to how this interacts with your ability to act. The lack of reaction is demonstrated by the flat-footed condition, which simply denies you your Dex bonus to AC and the ability to make AoOs. It's quite legitimate to state that, in the time leading to your first turn, you're already acting, but your reactions aren't quite sufficient to allow you to better defend yourself or to make good use of any opportunities early on. In any case, if your round's activity begins on your turn and you've yet to have a turn, then you're doing absolutely nothing in the time leading into your first turn. Since characters with Combat Reflexes or under the effects of foresight have the ability to make AoOs before they've had their first turn, we can see that this is not the case. As such, it's quite valid to suggest that you are indeed doing something before your first turn, and ending it the moment your turn is resolved. The only drawbacks are that you're poorly defended and a poor opportunist while getting into a combat rhythm. The logic seems to go back and forth on this one to me. I'm just having trouble following what you mean here. Here is what I understand on the matter. In the sequential play, the players declare any attacks of opportunity during the turn of the creature that is preforming the provoking act. In the simultaneous action, the characters make the attack of opportunity when the provoking creature starts the action that provokes the AoO. Therein lies the problem. If the AoO happens when the creature starts the provoking action, then the action is interrupted as it starts. If you're interrupted as you start something, what's preventing you from starting again right away? In other words, if my spellcasting gets interrupted 1 second into the action, what's keeping me from using the remaining 5 seconds to do something else? In order for AoOs to truly be disruptive, they need to occur as the actions they disrupt are about to end. If my spellcasting gets interrupted as I'm nearing completion, it then becomes logical for me to be unable to start again. Of course, the only way for this to be possible is for the AoO to take place during the completion of my casting. Since the AoO takes place during my turn, it becomes evident as to why I'm completing the casting on my turn. My description is not matching the turn based play, but that play is not meant to be a direct representation of the characters action. <snip> By limitation I mean that you seem to be determined to apply a direct - as opposed to an abstract - relationship between the artificial turn base play we use to keep combat moving in a practical, non confusing manner and the simultaneous action of the characters. I believe you're looking at things in the wrong way. The character activity is supposed to be a concrete representation of the abstract combat model. We choose to describe the action based on what the abstract model provides. A 35 damage fireball won't be described in the same way a 13 damage fireball will be. We do not know what actions we will describe until the action is resolved in the abstract model. This is why, as much as possible, your description SHOULD match the turn based play. The objective is making the turn based play seem simultaneous, just like it's making the fireball damage seem realistic. More or less. The abstract relationship makes this not completely 100% certain. Consider if the fighter is up against 5 orcs, all acting on the same initiative. The orcs would seem to be syncronized. But try to think of it as if you were watching this battle as a scene in a movie. What you would see would be more of a fast and furious exchange of blows, blocks, movements, reversals jumbled together in no clear order. We can't represent that the table in play. All we get is the fighter taking turns with the 5 orcs. But we can try to describe the action in a more exciting way. Notice the underlined part. I do not dispute the fast exchange of blows representation. However, fast as it may be, it seems extremely unlikely that two such blows will connect at the same time or that they will even start moving at the exact same time. In fact, it's more likely that one of the orcs will be able to land a hit while the fighter is busy defending against the other ones. Of course, since the orcs' actions are being completed in sequence without the interruption of someone else acting, you can very well ad lib on the description without breaking either the model or the illusion. And now for the "more of this later" I mentioned earlier. While you don't like the reasoning I gave for the full attack on the retreating foe, you did come up with a rational that allows for the same thing. Someone else would come up with something else that works for them. The only thing that is important is if it is plausible enough to maintain the illusion of simultaneous combat. That has been my intent as more RAW was provided. I'm trying to take all the RAW into account and present it in a way that's as consistent as possible with both the abstract and concrete aspects of combat.
Ace_of_time 12-24-07, 04:20 PM	There are RAW and then there is what people think that means. That is it. WotC already put out their own thing to clarify what that means for them so I feel no need to try and come up with what I think they were thinking at the time. Certainly wouldn't argue 10 pages over what I thought they thought it should be. Note: You might want to check back with them on that ruling of your. The entry I believe says it shouldn't take more then 2 days and we have been wait for your's for 4-5 pages now. As to the one I posted it is what they sent me. I post what they would have said no matter what the out come was. I don't mind saying I was wrong when I am. Every body is at some point.
Marcus Majarra 12-24-07, 04:44 PM	I've got the response today (at 12:20 PM) and I'm glad to confirm the answer you provided. Here's the entire text: Hi there Marcus, Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! Attacks of opportunity are tracked cyclically, which means that when your turn starts, your ability to take attacks of opportunity is reset. Most duration based things and "per round" things are tracked cyclically like this. This does not set a precedent for *per day* abilities. According to the Magic Item Compendium, "per day" magic items are recharged at dawn. If the per day recharge for a non-magic item ability is not clarified, the DM is free to use the "at dawn" recharge idea, or choose something else at their convenience. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) Sam Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST So there we have it. To answer this question: It doesn't even last one round and Good Guy A got 2 AoOs. Does that seem like what RAW intended? Yes, it seems like this is what RAW intended.
mvincent 12-24-07, 04:58 PM	I've got the response today (at 12:20 PM) and I'm glad to confirm the answer you provided. Here's the entire text: So there we have it. Thanks Marcus! :)
Marcus Majarra 12-24-07, 05:03 PM	Thanks Marcus! :) I take it your glee is due to your winning the bet? In all honesty, it wasn't much of a gamble, since I rarely disagree with your advice.
mvincent 12-24-07, 05:19 PM	I take it your glee is due to your winning the bet?Heh... what's not to like about winning bets! Seriously though, I was also being sincere... owning up is to be commended (and appreciated).
BoringInfoGuy 12-26-07, 10:20 PM	I've got the response today (at 12:20 PM) and I'm glad to confirm the answer you provided. Here's the entire text: Hi there Marcus, Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! Attacks of opportunity are tracked cyclically, which means that when your turn starts, your ability to take attacks of opportunity is reset. Most duration based things and "per round" things are tracked cyclically like this. This does not set a precedent for *per day* abilities. According to the Magic Item Compendium, "per day" magic items are recharged at dawn. If the per day recharge for a non-magic item ability is not clarified, the DM is free to use the "at dawn" recharge idea, or choose something else at their convenience. Take Care and Good Gaming! Sam Not only did this answer the question, it included some additional information - nice. It did leave me curious as to the wording you sent in. So there we have it. To answer this question: It doesn't even last one round and Good Guy A got 2 AoOs. Does that seem like what RAW intended? Yes, it seems like this is what RAW intended. Sorry, but I have to point out that the example Orenmir was asking this question off of was ignoring the Flat-footed rules. This omission is what prompted me to join the thread in the first place.* Without Combat Reflexes, a character can't get more than one Attack of Opportunity before the first round ends. So no, that is not what RAW intended. Ok, I'm done. Let this thread die. *Looking back, I noticed that I never responded to Orenmir's reply to my first post. It's too late now, but when will I get another chance? Yes, I can believe that you've never played with a DM or group that uses the flat-footed rules. I can't even guess how many times I had to remind rogues to take their sneak attack damage against flat-footed foes.