No AoO w/o Combat Reflexes?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

How much harm would it do to the game if a house rule were implemented that said that no creature could make an attack of opportunity without having the Combat Reflexes feat? Combat Reflexes would be rewritten like this:

COMBAT REFLEXES [General]
Benefit: You may make a number of attacks of opportunity equal to 1 plus your Dexterity modifier.
Normal: A character without this feat cannot make an attack of opportunity.
Special: The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat at 2nd level.

Another feat would be added to allow the ability to make Attacks of Opportunity while flat-footed.

IMPROVED COMBAT REFLEXES [General]
Pre-Requisite: Combat Reflexes
Benefit: You may make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat cannot make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special: The Improved Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Improved Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Improved Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat at 2nd level.

Thanks.

[Ahnehnois]

It would make spellcasters and archers more powerful, large creatures less powerful, and would make Combat Ref an almost obligatory feat choice for a fighter.

It would also make abilities based on avoiding AoOs much less important; Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Casting, etc. would not be worth taking, and Tumble would go from being a great skill to a mediocre one.

If your style involves much tactical wargaming, it would totally unbalance the game. If you're an extreme storyteller/character actor who never uses battlemats or tracks AoOs anyway, making this change could be part of a houserule set to make everything simpler (some combat-light games, such as CoC d20 and I think Modern make AoOs optional).

I wouldn't do it, and I'm not even real heavy on the tactical stuff.

[Celebrim]

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is. By making it more important, you are unbalancing the game.

[Voadam]

Spellcasters would not have to focus on concentration as much and could spend skill points on other skills.

Reach would be less of a threat, you'd have people charging big bad guys more.

More missile fire while in melee instead of five foot step and fire.

Expect more maneuvers to be used. If one works well for a character expect it to be used a lot.

These factors are countered when facing foes with the combat reflexes feat.

How many big creatures will have the CR to swat incoming charging knights/barbarians?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Thanks for the reply, Ahnehnois.

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

It would make spellcasters and archers more powerful, large creatures less powerful, and would make Combat Ref an almost obligatory feat choice for a fighter.

Good info... I hadn't thought about how it would affect larger creatures.

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

It would also make abilities based on avoiding AoOs much less important; Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Casting, etc. would not be worth taking, and Tumble would go from being a great skill to a mediocre one.

More ideas I hadn't thought about. This is why I love ENWorld!

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

If your style involves much tactical wargaming, it would totally unbalance the game. If you're an extreme storyteller/character actor who never uses battlemats or tracks AoOs anyway, making this change could be part of a houserule set to make everything simpler (some combat-light games, such as CoC d20 and I think Modern make AoOs optional).

Hmmm... We're really starting to get more into miniatures, now, whether we play 3X or AD&D, so tactics seem to be getting more important for our group. I just didn't want everyone to paralyze their characters in combat in order to avoid AoO's. I've seen that happen a lot, so I was trying to think of a way to reduce the frequency of AoO's.

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

I wouldn't do it, and I'm not even real heavy on the tactical stuff.

Thanks for the advice. Really appreciate it!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is. By making it more important, you are unbalancing the game.

Thanks, Celebrim. That's part of the reason I was thinking of splitting Combat Reflexes into two feats. But, I think you're probably right.

This is why I wanted to talk this out on ENWorld before making this kind of rule change in my group when I DM.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Voadam

Spellcasters would not have to focus on concentration as much and could spend skill points on other skills.

Right about that, Voadam. However, I've been thinking of adopting something like the Pathfinder variant concerning concentration. I don't have it memorized, but it's not a skill that spellcasters sink points into in that system, but the DC to cast on the defensive to avoid an AoO is higher.

Originally Posted by Voadam

Reach would be less of a threat, you'd have people charging big bad guys more.

Yeah... I've been trying to figure out how to handle charging. Can't seem to get anyone to do it because they're afraid of their characters taking an AoO. Guess they should take Mobility?

Originally Posted by Voadam

More missile fire while in melee instead of five foot step and fire.

Yeah, that one really bothers me. It shouldn't be a freebie to fire a bow while standing right next to your target.

Originally Posted by Voadam

Expect more maneuvers to be used. If one works well for a character expect it to be used a lot.

Right. I don't mind manuevers that make sense, but spamming cheesy manuevers just to exploit a rule or lack thereof bothers me.

Originally Posted by Voadam

These factors are countered when facing foes with the combat reflexes feat.

Yes, they are. But, I almost feel like giving Combat Reflexes might feel like a "Gotcha" if AoO's become really rare. The player's might feel like I'm cheeting if a group of elite hill giant bodyguards all have Combat Reflexes, if they're not used to seeing AoO's regularly.

Originally Posted by Voadam

How many big creatures will have the CR to swat incoming charging knights/barbarians?

If I were to adopt this system, the answer would depend upon the big creatures dexterity. The way I wrote the possible revisions to the feats, the creature would have to have a 10 dex to even get one AoO with the Combat Reflexes feat. I don't know off the top of my head what the usual Dexterity is for most big creatures.

Good thoughts... Thanks for posting!

[Sadrik]

I think that it may be okay.

It will definitely hurt the DM more than the players though. To implement this you will have to consider quite a few rules. Reach weapons, large and bigger monsters are only the tip of the iceberg. There are a slew of feats - Mobility, Spring attack, Shot on the run, Ride by attack, Fly by attack and I am sure others and of course tumble skill and withdraw action. However it is not unmanageable. Note the changes to them and move on. If you are looking to remove the tactical aspect of 3e then by all means this should simplify and speed the game up quite a bit.

[Ahnehnois]

Originally Posted by Hrothgar Rannúlfr

Thanks for the reply, Ahnehnois.



Good info... I hadn't thought about how it would affect larger creatures.

The second level of this is that I just thought of is that if you have a world with (generally) no AoOs, and the players eschew feat and skill options for avoiding them, but you then give your next giant/dragon/etc. Combat Reflexes, the players will be unprepared to deal with it and the creature will be even more devastating. Yikes.

I can see where the problem of having players stuck because they're afraid of AoOs arises, but I think the solution is more for the players to prepare for them better and perhaps for the DM to learn/enforce the rules better (which took me a bit of time because they can be confusing). There is a lot you can do by simple withdraws and 5 ft. steps, but I've seen experienced players who don't know how these rules work.

[El Mahdi]

How about: You can only make an AoO if you aren't engaged in combat yourself and someone passes within range, OR only if you have Combat Reflexes if engaged in combat.

[Sylrae]

I Gotta ask, why do you want to get rid of AoOs? Is it to speed up gameplay?

I took this in the opposite direction.

Every creature has 1 attack of opportunity they can make per round. If a character is open to attacks of opportunity they are unable to make attacks of opportunity. This is a free standard action (hostile) which can be taken against any creature that is unable to defend themselves.
Any time a character is flat footed, or unconscious, or would lose their dexterity bonus to AC, or is partaking in any of a number of specific actions, Creatures can make attacks of opportunity against them. Attacks of Opportunity can be made with ranged weapons. If someone is doing something which provokes an attack of opportunity, and an attack of opportunity is going to be taken, the attack of opportunity goes before the other action. (Like Casting Instants in Magic: The Gathering).
Making an attack of opportunity Provokes an attack of opportunity.

So, sparing the major details, Player A Falls Prone. Monster A Makes an AoO against Player A. Player B Makes a Ranged AoO Against Monster A. Monster B Attacks Player B.

Monster B Goes first in the AoO chain. > Misses.
Player B Hits Monster A> Does enough damage,
Monster A Loses his AoO due to the damage.
Player A is uninjured.

It doesn't save time, but the players in my group have liked the AoO Chain.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Combat Reflexes is almost a must have feat as is.

How so? I've had multiple characters with Combat reflexes and IME it rarely comes up. One notable time was when my high level eldritch knight had thunderlance going (20' reach force weapon from 1 rnd/level 4th level spell) and he was attacked by a swarm of shadows. Another was when multiple commoners tried to ambush grapple him at a banquet and he got in hits using his improved unarmed strike. I have a 5th level dwarf paladin who uses a ranseur (reach weapon) and I can't remember either his CR or hold the line feat ever being invoked even though he is usually on point for the party.

[Ahnehnois]

Combat Reflexes is essential if you have reach, use combat maneuvers (trip, esp), or if you use Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit. For a typical fighter it will be heavily dependent on how the DM runs enemies, and likely won't get used all that much, I agree.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by Voadam

How so?

Between grapple attempts and tiny creatures, being able to make attacks of oppurtunity in the surprise round is huge in itself. It's a free attack. If you have a high dexterity, it's potentially multiple free attacks and in some cases (swarm of stirges descends on you) it is almost like not being surprised at all.

I suppose however it very much depends on what sort of challenges you are usually presented with. If you DM generally has the party face off against a single high CR challenge, then it probably almost never comes up.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Between grapple attempts and tiny creatures, being able to make attacks of oppurtunity in the surprise round is huge in itself. It's a free attack. If you have a high dexterity, it's potentially multiple free attacks and in some cases (swarm of stirges descends on you) it is almost like not being surprised at all.

I suppose however it very much depends on what sort of challenges you are usually presented with. If you DM generally has the party face off against a single high CR challenge, then it probably almost never comes up.

Yeah, it all depends on if your foes provoke AoOs in surprise rounds or multiple AoOs in normal combat. If you fight lots of non-swarm tiny foes at a time, if opponents swarm on you instead of you moving to engage them, if they do maneuvers provoking AoOs such as grappling without improved grab, if you are caught by surprise and have a reach weapon, it can come into play.

If you don't use a reach weapon it is less likely to come up. If you walk around with your sword sheathed or a bow out to get in ranged shots first it won't help during surprise without improved unarmed strike or a bashable shield. If you go to your foes instead of letting them come to you it is unlikely to come up. If you personally usually engage one foe instead of being swarmed by multiples it is less likely to come up.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Thanks, again, everyone. Good discussion and lots to think about.

Originally Posted by Sylrae

I Gotta ask, why do you want to get rid of AoOs? Is it to speed up gameplay?

Thanks for the question, Sylrae. It's not necessarily to speed up gameplay. I just don't want player's characters to be so afraid of attacks of opportunity that they don't move around the battlefield.

Basically, the problem that I have is I'm almost the only one in our group who really takes the time to read the rules. Especially concerning attacks of opportunity. I know there are a lot of ways to avoid AoO's, but I haven't gotten my players to use those methods, yet. Took a long time to get them to use the Withdraw action, instead of just a 5' step. Tumble is seemingly not even in their thought process... They don't seem to like skills, in general (which is probably my fault, 'cause I didn't like them to begin with).

Originally Posted by Sylrae

Making an attack of opportunity Provokes an attack of opportunity.

Now, this is a nice, simple rule. For me, I can see needing to clarify that if you make an attack of opportunity, you can't make an attack of opportunity against the person/creature that makes an attack of opportunity on you unless you have the ability to make multiple attacks of opportunity.

Originally Posted by Sylrae

It doesn't save time, but the players in my group have liked the AoO Chain.

I actually like the AoO Chain, myself. I used it quite a bit in a few combats where I was testing the idea of allowing ranged weapons to threaten all the squares within line of sight out to one range increment. I liked it, but my players objected when 15 bow-wielding goblins got an attack of opportunity when someone fired a bow. The player's didn't care that the characters wielding ranged weapons could have made AoO's on the goblins.

But, the idea that making an AoO is a distracting act that provokes an attack of opportunity may be the exact solution that I'm looking for, Sylrae. Thanks for sharing this idea!!!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Sadrik

I think that it may be ok.

It will definately hurt the DM more than the players though. To impliment this you will have to consider quite a few rules though. Reach weapons, large and bigger monsters are only the tip of the iceburg. There are a slew of feats - Mobility, Spring attack, Shot on the run, Ride by attack, Fly by attack and I am sure others. However it is not unmanageable. Note the changes to them and move on. If you are looking to remove the tactical aspect of 3e then by all means this should simplify and speed the game up quite a bit.

Thanks, Sadrik. Overall, I think it's going to break too much to make the changes that I originally suggested at the beginning of this thread. What do you think of Sylrae's suggestion that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

The second level of this is that I just thought of is that if you have a world with (generally) no AoOs, and the players eschew feat and skill options for avoiding them, but you then give your next giant/dragon/etc. Combat Reflexes, the players will be unprepared to deal with it and the creature will be even more devastating. Yikes.

Yeah... That option is scary. I can see a total party kill resulting from this kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois

I can see where the problem of having players stuck because they're afraid of AoOs arises, but I think the solution is more for the players to prepare for them better and perhaps for the DM to learn/enforce the rules better (which took me a bit of time because they can be confusing). There is a lot you can do by simple withdraws and 5 ft. steps, but I've seen experienced players who don't know how these rules work.

I'm really going to refresh myself on the Attack of Opportunity rules, again, before making any changes. I don't think I'm going with my original suggestion in the first post. Right now, I'm leaning toward Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Do you have any thoughts on the pros or cons concerning this idea?

Thanks!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

How about: You can only make an AoO if you aren't engaged in combat yourself and someone passes within range, OR only if you have Combat Reflexes if engaged in combat.

Interesting, El Mahdi. I'd need to read some others thoughts on the ramifications of this change. I'm drawing a blank, right now, on what this proposed change causes downstream. Though, I'd imagine that it still makes larger creatures and reach weapons less valuable.

What do you think of Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity?

[Ahnehnois]

Originally Posted by Hrothgar Rannúlfr

Yeah... That option is scary. I can see a total party kill resulting from this kind of thing.



I'm really going to refresh myself on the Attack of Opportunity rules, again, before making any changes. I don't think I'm going with my original suggestion in the first post. Right now, I'm leaning toward Sylrae's idea that making an Attack of Opportunity provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Do you have any thoughts on the pros or cons concerning this idea?

Thanks!

If you leave the AoO rules as is and add in this idea that making an AoO provokes an AoO, it changes the landscape without necessarily unbalancing things; Combat Ref would be a fantastic feat-even more so than usual. A typical character would think twice about taking an AoO however, and tactical movement would become slightly easier.

The consequences for special opponents are that mages and archers are at a slight additional disadvantage from the core rules (since they provoke a lot of AoOs but generally don't threaten an area and can't retaliate) and big creatures or anyone with with reach has an advantage (because they can whack enemies before they're in range to retaliate). On the whole, I think the retaliatory AoO idea is an interesting wrinkle, not necessary by any means, but not as unbalancing as the original changes.