|
Intentionally provoking an AoO by moving so they can't take it during your casting action because you "the player" know that the monsters are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes is very "meta-gamey".I disagree. I can entirely picture something like:
-Enemy is up in caster's face.
-Caster fakes them out by turning to move away, takes a strike to the back, then immediately turns back to where he was.
-Enemy is too slow to respond to the 'feint' as it were (unless they have combat reflexes), and caster is free to get their spell off before the opponent recovers.Clever, both in character and out of character. Metagamey, I don't think so.
Just my opinion of course, but it seems perfectly fitting to me.
"Feinting" is a game mechanic. That's not what he's doing here. He didn't "bluff" the enemy, because he used a rules loophole to skip requiring that action. If he'd chosen to Bluff them into thinking he was running away and instead used the action to hide his hands, or even fake a spell so they wouldn't notice his actual casting that would be one thing. He didn't. He chicken-danced around in the squares because he as a player knew that an AoO would disrupt his spell and he had reason to believe that his character had a better chance of surviving the knifing from the goblins than of making his concentration check.
There were half a dozen ways to resolve this situation that would have drawn on the characters knowledge and resources, and the player instead used his OOC game knowledge to work the situation.We all do it from time to time, but I think it's a little silly to try and call it something other than exactly what it is, which is metagaming.
|
I generally don't like gaming against my players, but I have to be honest, a character using loopholes like this consistently would probably make me inclined to drop some goblin monks with the above-mentioned feats into a few encounters until he came up with something a bit less meta-gamey to handle these. Like just making his concentration checks, and picking up Combat Casting if he's concerned about his ability to do so.
I've been accused of "exploiting loopholes" myself for using Vicious Stomp to let my TripMonk inflict damage when he trips somebody.
I really don't see anything that makes "move in an attempt to draw an AoO" any more metagaming than "position myself alongside the caster so I can take an AoO". There's a ruleset that is in place, and combat takes place under those rules. Knowing how the rules work, and how to use them to achieve your goals, isn't really metagaming.
GMs frequently ask players to take their move a square at a time, because the players don't know everything about what might happen in each square. This is just the other side of that coin - the player is taking a move action a square at a time. Using the fact that the GM knows that the player intends to return to the same square at the end of the move as soon as they start their movement, and so deciding not to take an AoO, looks a whole lot more like metagaming to me than a player using effective tactics.
On subsequent rounds, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for the opponent to hold back on taking an AoO to forestall this tactic. But this means the player might be choosing to disengage, and get away with it because the opponent keeps his AoO in reserve; again, you can't base the opponent's actions on out-of-character information.
Didn't read the whole thread.
While this tactic works by RAW, I would not allow it at my table. To perform this move, the character would have to know something about the rules of his or her universe that he or she cannot.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To perform this move, the character would have to know something about the rules of his or her universe that he or she cannot.
And what exactly is it he'd have to know that he can't know?
That spellcasting provokes? The character obviously knows that, given he can choose to cast defensively.
That movement provokes? He obviously knows that too, given he himself could perform such an AoO.
That some people/creatures can take multiple AoO's while most people can't? If the PC can't know that, then taking Combat Reflexes is pointless because he'd never realize he gained the ability to take more AoO's.
So then what is it, specifically, that the PC cannot know?
|
|
That some people/creatures can take multiple AoO's while most people can't? If the PC can't know that, then taking Combat Reflexes is pointless because he'd never realize he gained the ability to take more AoO's.
So then what is it, specifically, that the PC cannot know?
This little portion right here is an abstraction that just doesn't hold up well. Who knows what percentage of of people/critters in his world have Combat Reflexes? What is "provoking" in terms of the way the character interacts with the world? Yes, a character could know that certain actions open him up for an attack. But going beyond that is using purely OoC knowledge. From a character perspective, they don't "take Combat Reflexes"; rather, their training and natural gifts enable them to attack and react to openings in their opponents defenses even more quickly. This is where the character is metagaming. I'm not going so far as to say I wouldn't allow it, but I'd certainly call it what it is.
|
|
I tend to play my home game pretty close to RAW. But if I were going to change things in combat this would be nowhere near the top of the list. A long way above it would be the rules on being flat-footed; while playing by RAW it's possible to get two attacks against an opponent while he's flat-footed (one in the surprise round, and one in the first normal round) that has always struck me as ridiculous. While I can just about accept it for ranged attacks, it also applies to melee attacks. My TripMonk has high perception, high stealth, and a high initiative modifier, so he often gets to act in the surprise round. And he has the "Lookout" teamwork feat (and an adventuring companion who also has that feat), so he frequently is allowed by RAW to close with the opponent and take a standard attack in the surprise round, and then take a full attack during the first round, all before the opponent has a chance to act.
Personally I'd expect that after the first attack my opponent probably knows that I'm there, so he shouldn't really be flat-footed. Buy by RAW, he's flat-footed until he gets a chance to act in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This little portion right here is an abstraction that just doesn't hold up well. Who knows what percentage of of people/critters in his world have Combat Reflexes? What is "provoking" in terms of the way the character interacts with the world? Yes, a character could know that certain actions open him up for an attack. But going beyond that is using purely OoC knowledge. From a character perspective, they don't "take Combat Reflexes"; rather, their training and natural gifts enable them to attack and react to openings in their opponents defenses even more quickly. This is where the character is metagaming. I'm not going so far as to say I wouldn't allow it, but I'd certainly call it what it is.That some people/creatures can take multiple AoO's while most people can't? If the PC can't know that, then taking Combat Reflexes is pointless because he'd never realize he gained the ability to take more AoO's.
So then what is it, specifically, that the PC cannot know?
I really don't see how it is metagaming for a character to think, "Unless my opponent has extremely good reflexes, I should be able to draw an attack by moving this way and then get a spell off while he recovers from the swing. It's a gamble, and it'll hurt like hell if I'm wrong, but it might just be my best shot..."
|
|
This is where the character is metagaming. I'm not going so far as to say I wouldn't allow it, but I'd certainly call it what it is.
What do you call the NPC 'knowing' the difference between a character who just took that first step away from combat, intending to step back and cast a spell, and a character who stepped away intending to disengage?
|
|
This is where the character is metagaming. I'm not going so far as to say I wouldn't allow it, but I'd certainly call it what it is.What do you call the NPC 'knowing' the difference between a character who just took that first step away from combat, intending to step back and cast a spell, and a character who stepped away intending to disengage?
The NPC doesn't "know" anything. The action taken to Withdraw or five foot step is taken with the action-takers guard up, so he doesn't leave any openings. When he's chicken dancing between squares, he's just not able to cover himself as well and the enemy sees and takes advantage of the opening.
|
Intentionally provoking an AoO by moving so they can't take it during your casting action because you "the player" know that the monsters are unlikely to have Combat Reflexes is very "meta-gamey".
While this tactic works by RAW, I would not allow it at my table. To perform this move, the character would have to know something about the rules of his or her universe that he or she cannot.
I think that both of you are judging this too harshly. If you think of the character's choices here:
1) He could cast normally, suffering three AoO's, if he survives, he could try to complete the spell by making the concentration check.
2) He could cast defensively and not suffer any AoO's but risk losing the spell (a 50/50 proposition in the OP).
3) He could use the "move and move back" (that was the OP's issue here)provoking three AoO's on the move and potentially, three more on the cast. If he survives the first AoO's, he must then cast the spell hoping none of his enemies have combat reflexes.
None of these are great options. In fact, option 3 is the riskiest in terms of the chance of dying but it gave the best chance of getting the spell off. Risk is on par with reward.
I have ranger and bard builds that optimize using mobility to provoke AoO's then to cast unmolested. Would this be meta-gaming too? We don't consider it that way at my table. Meta-gaming can get a bad rap occasionally, but it is part of the game. I consider managing the meta-game to be as important as managing the game itself. I don't approve of the "I'm going to die if I don't get healing this round" from an unconscious character or a barbarian ending a rage, etc. But, knowing the rules - that's just part of being a great player.
Andy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Feinting" is a game mechanic. That's not what he's doing here. He didn't "bluff" the enemy, because he used a rules loophole to skip requiring that action.
That's why I used the term 'feint' lightly. I'm not referring to the game mechanic. He wasn't trying to deny his enemy their Dex to AC. I'm referring to the actual practice of mixing up the enemy, which is exactly what he did.
He chicken-danced around in the squares because he as a player knew that an AoO would disrupt his spell and he had reason to believe that his character had a better chance of surviving the knifing from the goblins than of making his concentration check.
And how is this metagaming? He absolutely does know that taking a knife in his sides while casting will be problematic for him, so he'd rather give them the opportunity ahead of time, and then counter with a spell while they're still recovering.
There were half a dozen ways to resolve this situation that would have drawn on the characters knowledge and resources, and the player instead used his OOC game knowledge to work the situation.
How is it any more OOC knowledge than 5-foot stepping back, and then casting?
"If I move at top speed to get away from this guy, I'll provoke an attack of opportunity, but if I just 5-foot step, then I can cast with no problem and won't even get the AoO. Unless of course, the guy has Step Up, in which case it'll be a lot more dangerous and then I won't even be able to move for real after taking the 5-foot step, because the game rules just don't let you do that. I could pull out an item or something instead though, in the same amount of time. Just can't move."
How could that scenario possibly make any more sense in-character?
There are lots of abstractions in the game, and movement/AoO's is one of them. Saying a character can't understand the rules by which their universe works puts things in a pretty weird place for the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
From a character perspective, they don't "take Combat Reflexes"; rather, their training and natural gifts enable them to attack and react to openings in their opponents defenses even more quickly. This is where the character is metagaming.
Knowing that most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another, and trying to bait an attack so that you can do something risky during that recovery time, is not metagaming.
Heck, it comes up in movies all the time, usually against some kind of large and slow-moving enemy like a giant with a club. A person deliberately gets its attention and waits for it to attack. The giant slams its club down. The character jumps aside and retaliates (or does something else) before the lumbering hulk can raise its club back up again.
If we modeled that scenario in a game, we'd divide time up into rounds and say the giant could only attack X number of times in a round. The player could count the attacks, and when there are none left, go in for a risky move. But the fact that we codified it with labels and numbers doesn't cause the character to suddenly forget the kinds of openings he already knew how to exploit.
|
|
From a character perspective, they don't "take Combat Reflexes"; rather, their training and natural gifts enable them to attack and react to openings in their opponents defenses even more quickly. This is where the character is metagaming.Knowing that most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another, and trying to bait an attack so that you can do something risky during that recovery time, is not metagaming.
What do you suppose the odds are of what is essentially a librarian knowing that "most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another" actually are? That is instinctual knowledge developed from combat experience, certainly not something a low level wizard would have developed.
I don't know why you see the need to defend this. I'm not saying I wouldn't allow it, but it is metagaming. The player is using knowledge of game rules to use an action that makes no sense from a character perspective, but that nets him the largest reward.You can armchair it here all you like and come up with "reasonable" explanations that justify what the character is doing, but, he was metagaming. You think it actually makes sense to take a knife in the kidney so you don't take a knife in the kidney one second later? Of course not.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you suppose the odds are of what is essentially a librarian knowing that "most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another" actually are?
Found the issue: you're not playing Pathfinder. :/
In Pathfinder, wizards have the same combat aptitude at levels 1-2 as every single other class except for fighters, barbarians and paladins. In Pathfinder, wizards know that getting injured while casting can cost them their spells. In Pathfinder, some wizards are trained at casting spells while threatened or grappled right from the beginning. In Pathfinder, wizards can load and fire crossbows proficiently.
If you want a game where wizards are essentially librarians, Pathfinder isn't the game for you.
|
|
The NPC doesn't "know" anything. The action taken to Withdraw or five foot step is taken with the action-takers guard up, so he doesn't leave any openings. When he's chicken dancing between squares, he's just not able to cover himself as well and the enemy sees and takes advantage of the opening.This is where the character is metagaming. I'm not going so far as to say I wouldn't allow it, but I'd certainly call it what it is.What do you call the NPC 'knowing' the difference between a character who just took that first step away from combat, intending to step back and cast a spell, and a character who stepped away intending to disengage?
I didn't say "Withdraw". I've frequently disengaged from a combat to move elsewhere in the battle for a variety of reasons, risking an AoO. If you, as a GM-controlled NPC, decide whether or not to take an AoO based on out-of-character knowledge of where the character is going to finish their movement then you're the one who is metagaming.
|
What do you suppose the odds are of what is essentially a librarian knowing that "most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another" actually are? That is instinctual knowledge developed from combat experience, certainly not something a low level wizard would have developed.
Your wizard might be a librarian who has never seen a fight in his life (though I might question why such a person has suddenly gone adventuring) but mine is attached to a unit of mercenaries and has trained to support and aid his companions for a few years now, he's even been in a number of fights and knows how to kill a man with a crossbow. Or maybe he's a pirate, who has sailed, fought and lived hard for years, has been in more brawls than your wizard has had hot meals and knows when to watch for a knife in the ribs and when to throw a punch.
If you've ever taken a 5 foot step vs an enemy without a reach weapon to cast safely, you meta gamed, if you ever charged an enemy for the +2 to hit because you figured their AC was high, you meta gamed, etc etc.
There are, and have been given, many perfectly valid IC reasons for someone to make such a move, if your PC wouldn't have that reasoning fine, don't do it, but don't say other people are cheesing the rules just because they don't fit *your* image of what they should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we look at the rules, we will notice that each round is 6 seconds long and that each PC/NPC/Monster has a sequential turn in that round and that their turn in the round is supposed to be 6 seconds long.
Assuming a party of 4, plus an NPC is encountering 5 monsters that would mean 60 seconds of activity has occurred within 6 seconds. There are three ways that this could happen:
1. Timestop is used liberally allowing each person to act sequentially
2. The game world is practically moving at the speed of light and some funky time related physics that Stephen Hawking would need to explain is happening
3. The actions are occurring in parallel but the game designers decided it was too difficult to play as a tabletop game if every PC/NPC/monster's actions were played concurrently.
I suspect the answer is 3 and the sequential actions are a gameplay convenience. The fighter with 3 iterative attacks does not swing 3 times in 6 seconds and then wait 6 seconds whilst his spell casting opponent casts a spell at him. The player who was inviting the AoO before casting the spell was using a loophole in the written gameplay mechanics that allow each person to have a turn in what is essentially a representation of concurrent activity. Yes he was clever for finding it and yes it is cheesy.
|
|
The player who was inviting the AoO before casting the spell was using a loophole in the written gameplay mechanics that allow each person to have a turn in what is essentially a representation of concurrent activity. Yes he was clever for finding it and yes it is cheesy.
It is not cheesy. Just because you don't happen to like it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. The rules are very explicit about sequential versus parallel activities; you can make your attack before your move, or after it, but not part-way through it (unless you have the appropriate feat). The spellcaster is deciding to take his move action first, and then his standard action to cast, exactly as spelled out in the rules. You don't get to arbitrarily decide that rules which state that particular actions occur in a defined sequence are actually saying something else. You can house-rule it away in a home game, but you should make it very clear that is what you are doing; the rules don't allow for your interpretation.
|
|
If you've ever taken a 5 foot step vs an enemy without a reach weapon to cast safely, you meta gamed, if you ever charged an enemy for the +2 to hit because you figured their AC was high, you meta gamed, etc etc.
There are, and have been given, many perfectly valid IC reasons for someone to make such a move, if your PC wouldn't have that reasoning fine, don't do it, but don't say other people are cheesing the rules just because they don't fit *your* image of what they should be.
See, and this is part of the problem. I never said they couldn't/shouldn't do it. I in fact said numerous times that I would allow it. I also said that it was blatant metagaming, which it is.
A second level mage has exactly the same innate combat experience as a second level monk, i.e. BAB.
(Awesome allusion to people just "sitting in their armchairs" while thinking about, err, roleplaying...)
A mage has nowhere near the same combat facility as a monk. And I would probably question the monk taking the same action if he had some reason to. Monks have flurry and various other abilities reflecting their "true" combat experience.
@Jiggy
I'm not saying that wizards are "only librarians" I'm saying that it would take either a highly experienced combatant or someone with kick ass perceptive abilities to gauge how fast a given person may or may not be able to react in combat, and few if any 2nd level characters match that bill, particularly ones whose specialty is not close combat.
Regardless, I can see it is pointless to continue this discussion because some of you claiming the "it's not metagaming" argument are also devoloving into throwing personally oriented defamations and I'm just not interested in playing that game.
See, and this is part of the problem. I never said they couldn't/shouldn't do it. I in fact said numerous times that I would allow it. I also said that it was blatant metagaming, which it is.
But the point I and several other people are trying to make here is "No, it isn't metagaming." The fact that you'd allow it isn't really relevant to the discussion, it's the fact that you think it's metagaming.
Edit: Obviously, personal opinion and all that, but you make it sound like people are defending it only because they want it to work on a personal level, which, while I can't speak for everyone, is not the case. I at least am defending it because I think it makes perfect sense, in character.
|
|
3. The actions are occurring in parallel but the game designers decided it was too difficult to play as a tabletop game if every PC/NPC/monster's actions were played concurrently.
I suspect the answer is 3 and the sequential actions are a gameplay convenience. The fighter with 3 iterative attacks does not swing 3 times in 6 seconds and then wait 6 seconds whilst his spell casting opponent casts a spell at him. The player who was inviting the AoO before casting the spell was using a loophole in the written gameplay mechanics that allow each person to have a turn in what is essentially a representation of concurrent activity. Yes he was clever for finding it and yes it is cheesy.
I agree with your premise that the combat round represents your "option 3" moreso than the others. What I'm asking here is "why is using this tactic cheesy?" When bards do it, it seems to be OK. Rangers too. When other characters do it to clear the way for clerics, that's OK. Monks do it to keep the damage penalty off their combat manuever checks, that's no problem either. But when a wizard does it, no way! We have a meta-gamer doing bad deeds!
Would it have been different if he ran 30ft. (taking the AoO's) and then cast? I know the OP said that was not possible in this case, but what if it were? That happens to some degree routinely in my games. Why, for what reason, in close quarters, is it meta-gaming a loophole?
Andy
|
|
Regardless, I can see it is pointless to continue this discussion because some of you claiming the "it's not metagaming" argument are also devoloving into throwing personally oriented defamations and I'm just not interested in playing that game.
Pot? I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
You're trying to claim the moral high ground by stating that although this is obviously metagaming, you might allow it in your games because you're a nice guy. That would be fine if you weren't also suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is a cheese weasel indulging in badwrongfun - at least as much of a personally oriented defamation as anything that has been put forward by the other side.
|
|
Regardless, I can see it is pointless to continue this discussion because some of you claiming the "it's not metagaming" argument are also devoloving into throwing personally oriented defamations and I'm just not interested in playing that game.
That's too bad. I was looking forward to taking an AoO with my cheese cutter ;-)
I disagree with the premise that knowing the rules and using that knowledge makes you a meta-gamer in the negative sense. The game devolves into an unplayable morass without some degree of this. By mentioning it as meta-gaming, I take that you mean this negatively? And I think that is overly harsh.
Andy
Please note that while I have quoted you several times, I hope I've not written anything that you construed as a personal attack.
I've made very similar moves in real life against one of my sparing partners. I stepped in quickly giving the impression that my momentum would get me closer than I had planned. My opponent threw his kick like I expected (we sparred all the time so I knew he would throw that particular kick), then I quickly stepped back and struck his outstretched foot. It was a tactic that worked at the time, because it caused him pain and made it more difficult for him to kick (yeah, we played rough back then).
My movement - forward then back and strike - is similar to this wizard's movement: back then forward and cast. Both were meant to provoke an attack in order to take advantage of an opening.
The fact that the player is forced to utilize the rules of the game in order to do this should not be considered "metagaming." And even if it is, who cares? Does it not make sense thematically? Is he ruining the game and making it not fun for everyone? Is he not roleplaying while allegedly metagaming? These are important questions to ask yourself when you think someone is "metagaming" too much.
@andymcdonald - To my view roleplaying games are all about interpretation and taking a reasonable view about the intention of the rules over the precise wording of the RAW; particularly as the RAW are meant to be a turn based representation of concurrent activities.
The RAW specifically mention that a caster who is casting a spell may be subject to an AoO. My interpretation is that the intent is that if a spell is being cast someone has the opportunity to interrupt that. The RAW have built in two different methods the caster can avoid being interrupted: Either cast defensively or move out of melee range before casting.
The limit on AoO in a round is a gameplay balancing feature and I believe is intended to represent that there are a limit to the number of times a combatant can take advantage of an opportunistic whilst fighting.
Your example with clearing the way for clerics is a good example of imagining concurrent play. The fighter (or whatever) deliberately engages the enemy to clear a path for the cleric moving through behind. Whereas the wizard example we're debating has the wizard turning around on the spot before casting a spell. In a concurrent world he would be hit whilst turning around and hit again when mumbling and twiddling his fingers.
It's the using the RAW to deliberately create a gameplay distinction between the turn-based game and the concurrent activity it is trying to represent that I find cheesy.
|
|
Regardless, I can see it is pointless to continue this discussion because some of you claiming the "it's not metagaming" argument are also devoloving into throwing personally oriented defamations and I'm just not interested in playing that game.That's too bad. I was looking forward to taking an AoO with my cheese cutter ;-)
I disagree with the premise that knowing the rules and using that knowledge makes you a meta-gamer in the negative sense. The game devolves into an unplayable morass without some degree of this. By mentioning it as meta-gaming, I take that you mean this negatively? And I think that is overly harsh.
Andy
Please note that while I have quoted you several times, I hope I've not written anything that you construed as a personal attack.
Andy,
I appreciate the sentiment, and no, you have not done anything to offend me. What I find offensive is being accused of saying things I did not. I never accused anyone of being a "cheese weasel indulging in badwrongfun", I never even used the term "cheese". I stated that the action being discussed is an action that just doesn't make sense outside of the realm of metagaming.
What do you suppose the odds are of what is essentially a librarian knowing that "most people, unless they're exceptionally quick, need about X amount of time to recover from a swing before they can make another" actually are? That is instinctual knowledge developed from combat experience, certainly not something a low level wizard would have developed.Your wizard might be a librarian who has never seen a fight in his life (though I might question why such a person has suddenly gone adventuring) but mine is attached to a unit of mercenaries and has trained to support and aid his companions for a few years now, he's even been in a number of fights and knows how to kill a man with a crossbow. Or maybe he's a pirate, who has sailed, fought and lived hard for years, has been in more brawls than your wizard has had hot meals and knows when to watch for a knife in the ribs and when to throw a punch.
If you've ever taken a 5 foot step vs an enemy without a reach weapon to cast safely, you meta gamed, if you ever charged an enemy for the +2 to hit because you figured their AC was high, you meta gamed, etc etc.
There are, and have been given, many perfectly valid IC reasons for someone to make such a move, if your PC wouldn't have that reasoning fine, don't do it, but don't say other people are cheesing the rules just because they don't fit *your* image of what they should be.
This right here.
@ Ssalarn - Assuming a Wizard is a clueless bookworm in a fight is a GROSS misjudgement. Wizards have proficiency with more weapons than you or I probably do, and are fully capable of applying their dexterity to their armor class in order to dodge incoming attacks. How could they do that if they had literally no combat awareness? A Wizard is intelligent, and it's completely within the realm of possibility that someone with high intelligence might know a thing or two about the THEORY of fighting, even if he has not rigorously practiced it himself.
In this case, the Wizard SHOULD know that moving away will leave him open to attack, casting a spell will leave him open to attack, and that his opponent may need time to recover from a swing. Putting those bits of the equation together to come up with a (certainly risky) solution is not metagaming. The Wizard has all of the information he needs, and acting upon it is not cheesing anything.
I would be more willing to defend your if the spellcaster in question was a Sorcerer and had low Int and Wisdom. If a character lacks the mental facilities to make use of the information, then I agree doing what he did was metagaming, but a Wizard is NOT lacking in mental facilities.
What if the attacker chose to trip with the AoO? That caster would just be mega boned.
I don't buy the idea that characters know that if they leave themselves open to attack twice in quick succession that foes generally can take advantage of only one of those openings.
|
|
@Hugo Rune - I concur that the rules of the game should lie in the background to maximize roleplaying opportunities, character interactions, etc. But the rules framework is there and in cases like this where somebody asks: "is this allowed..." we can examine it from different angles.
I have suggested that the sequence of actions by the wizard, while certainly flying in the face of concurrent actions, is no different than the other examples of monks, bards or clerics doing similar stuff. It seems that in the case of the wizard, it's meta-gaming, but for the other examples, it's not. Why?
And why does the mobility feat exist? To be used is the only answer. Consequently, the move action-provoke AoO-standard action sequence was, in my judgment, planned into the rules framework. It's not a loophole.
I like your angle of looking at the question from the rationale of what the mechanics are trying to represent. But when looked at that way, similar cases and extrapolations should also fall under the same rationale or the judgement will lack internal consistency.
Now, if you ruled that any damage that took place on the character's turn in the iniative would act against spell casting, combat manuevers, etc, I'd say you have an interesting and internally consistent house rule. But I still remain unconvinced that this example was anything but first-rate play.
Andy
@Andy - I don't know the other examples you're talking about so can't give an opinion on them.
I agree with you that it was clever play and it is admittedly a borderline case, my first post said I would allow it in session and warn the player after the session that I would deliberately counter if he tried it again.
First impressions count and my first impression was that it was a deliberate circumvention of the RAI and other RAW and felt cheesy. Hence why I would deliberately counter it - the in game justification is that spell casters often do this type of movement to stop opponents from interrupting their spells so when the opportunity arises (through the movement) the opponent stops the caster from beginning their spell instead.
I also agree with you that pushing the idea to it's logical conclusion is the house rule you suggest, but that would not be fun for anyone performing an AoO inducing action and would make the game monotonous. So there does have to be some handwaving of reality to make a fun game.
Ultimately, it comes down to there being a social contract between the GM and the players. If the players push the GM with what he considers cheese he'll stop having fun. If he clamps down too hard on the players' creativity they'll stop having fun. The happy balance is in the middle.
|
|
@Hugo Rune - The other examples were things that I brought up in a past post on this thread.
It seems nobody has a problem with a monk doing a move action-provoke AoO-combat manuever, a bard with mobility doing a move action-provoke AoO-cast spell, or a cleric having fighters move action-provoke AoO-cleric cast spell. These activities use the same rule (or exploit the same loophole) as the wizard's actions in the OP. What makes one a meta-gaming ploy and the others not?
Since you're unaware of them I take it that you were not excluding them from meta-gaming as I thought previously.
Regardless, I agree that the fun of the game is the only real concern after all.
Andy
@Andy - I've seen your earlier post now and I guess it is still situational. In your case you've expended a feat and have focused builds on gaining that advantage. Play wise I could see your character moving in and faking the opening that draws the AoO and then popping the spell. Your characters have practised it repeatedly and have the Mobility feat to represent that practice and focus.
I guess a lot of it is down to presentation because I would allow your action as I wrote it above and mechanically there is nothing different about the wizard doing the same thing without the practice represented by the Mobility Feat. How the wizard's actions were presented felt cheesy though.
I'm not against metagaming, I view it as an essential replacement for lacking the character's skills in real life and understanding how the game works. Most metagaming can be translated back into gameplay. I do object to when the game rules rules are manipulated to challenge the suspension of disbelief (i.e. I can't see how such an action would work with a concurrent set of actions and the player can't explain either other than by stating it's allowed by the RAW)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite frankly, if the Wizard does this going forward, all the GM has to do is throw in a creature with the Combat Reflexes Feat that doesn't normally have it. These could be "Slightly more evolved Goblins" or just "Elite" versions.
To me, if the Player is going "I know the Stat Block of the Goblin, and I know he doesn't have Combat Reflexes", THAT is MetaGaming.
The Player is saying "I'm willing to take a hit for a good chance that it doesn't have Combat Reflexes" is taking a Gamble, not MetaGaming.
Throwing in my suggestion at the top, throws off both his ability to MetaGame & shows that Gambles have Risks sometimes. He might use it more sparingly, or when it truly needs to do it.
|
|
What if the attacker chose to trip with the AoO? That caster would just be mega boned.Only if the attacker had Combat reflexes, otherwise its actually better for the character, i.e. no hp loss but can still cast perfectly.
Except for now being prone and subject to full attacks at -4 to your AC. But hey, I hope the enemy fails his save!
This is why you should occasionally have creatures and NPCs with Combat Reflexes. It's a good feat to take, and it makes sense for a lot of martial characters. It especially makes sense for a Disruptive fighter who also has Step-Up! :D
Quite frankly, if the Wizard does this going forward, all the GM has to do is throw in a creature with the Combat Reflexes Feat that doesn't normally have it. These could be "Slightly more evolved Goblins" or just "Elite" versions.
To me, if the Player is going "I know the Stat Block of the Goblin, and I know he doesn't have Combat Reflexes", THAT is MetaGaming.
The Player is saying "I'm willing to take a hit for a good chance that it doesn't have Combat Reflexes" is taking a Gamble, not MetaGaming.
Throwing in my suggestion at the top, throws off both his ability to MetaGame & shows that Gambles have Risks sometimes. He might use it more sparingly, or when it truly needs to do it.
+1
It reminds me of a player I had who did in fact memorize stat blocks. To the point of in the middle if a fight pitching a fit because the ogre had taken more than its max HP according to the MM.
It's all about the why. If you know the player using blessed crossbow bolts on the Rakshasha was doing it out a need to hit no foul. But if you describe the monster and the cleric starts blessing every by in sight without a check then we have a problem.
All this is to say I guess that yes it's using knowledge of the rules. But it's the kind that someone would pick up on eventually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy the idea that characters know that if they leave themselves open to attack twice in quick succession that foes generally can take advantage of only one of those openings.
Why not? I would imagine that a group of adventures would at least occasionally practice their abilities within the group, when they're not spending their time actually adventuring.
During such practice sessions, scenarios like that would certainly have come up, perhaps especially so for a wizard/sorcerer/<other main spellcaster>, who would presumably spend additional time attempting to find out how to cast spells while in a close-combat situation, given that such situations are among the most dangerous situations they can find themselves in.
So, the wizard would "know" that his companions were unable to take advantage of multiple openings during short spans of time, except Rannolf the Ranger who has particularly good reflexes. Thus, this tactic would be a sound one, unless faced with a similarly skilled opponent. Hence the gamble.
This tactic actually sounds like the basis for an interesting spellcaster feat; the spellcaster version of "feint"
Possible uses could be:
to trick opponents into thinking you've started spellcasting (to provoke), and then actually spellcast after their attack,
or to trick opposing spellcasters into thinking you are casting a different spell, or at a different time-- to foil counterspelling,
or to intimidate opponents into thinking you've got another fireball in the chamber, when all you've got left is dancing lights.
I suppose this could all be covered under Bluff, depending on the GM.
And... if there already is a feat like this, could y'all let me know?