getting rid of attacks of opportunity without breaking stuff

Hi all. I'm going to be starting an Eberron campaign very soon, and I'm doing a few things here and there to beef up the 'pulp action' aspect of the setting. One thing I can't figure out a good mechanic for is attacks of opportunity. Basically I feel like they slow the game down, often without really changing anything - spellcasters or archers can often take a 5' step and cast/full attack, and monks figure out crazy ways to zig-zag across the battlefield to reach their target. My group doesn't include any spiked chain nuts, so all considerations regarding how badly I'm hosing spiked chains are pretty much a moot point. It's just one of my pet peeves having the game slow to a crawl while somebody tests different plans of movement, like a chessplayer still holding his finger on the piece, and then 90% of the time they eventually go 'Aha!' and find a way to do whatever it was they originally wanted to do without drawing any attacks. I also hate yelling at them to go faster when I know I'd be doing the same thing (since I do it when I'm a player, too).

Like I said, I'm not really worried about the spellcasters and archers. The spellcasters are going to fold if they spend much time in melee range, and the archers, well, Improved Sunder (or even regular sunder) will ruin your day if your weapon has 5 hardness and 3 hit points. However, I do have a few concerns, and I'd like some advice on how to handle them:

1) Reach weapons. These lose a fair amount of their shine without those protective attacks of opportunity. Would it be fair to make all reach weapons hit both 5' and 10' away, instead of just 10'?

2) Natural reach monsters. This is a pretty big one for some monsters - just think how much weaker a hydra will be without its massive attacks of opportunity. Any thoughts on what to do with this one?

3) Passing between enemies. Without attacks of opportunity, anything less than a solid wall of minions isn't worth a damn to protect a BBEG. How about saying 'You can't move through a space adjacent to two or more enemies who are not adjacent to each other'? I realize it's sort of artificial, but I think it fits the theme of the setting relatively well, and the wording may sound complicated but it basically just boils down to 'no running in between gaps in the enemy', meaning that a loose line formation still provides a defense for whoever's behind it (just like in the Batman TV show). A character could, of course, bowl over one of the combatants using Overrun.

The only remaining thing is for chases; it becomes very difficult to do anything to a person with the same speed as you while you're running. You catch up to them, you can't do anything, they run away. Repeat until someone fails a Con check. Perhaps the Run action will have to be my exception. "When you start the Run action, you draw attacks of opportunity as described in the SRD."

Any thoughts? Comments on my ideas? Suggestions for improvement? Horoscopes?

Rather than ditching AoOs, redefine them a bit.

Get rid of movement-based AoOs. No more "moving through a threatened area draws an AoO." Keep action-based AoOs. "Digging into your backpack 5 feet from the orc draws an AoO."

Then, add two more specific actions to AoOs.

"Closing on a foe who has reach on you, be it natural or due to a reach weapon, draws an AoO."

"Fleeing from an opponent with anything other than a full retreat draws an AoO."

What you have there is a system that still uses AoOs where called for (such as reach monsters or weapons), and still prevents the players from just ignoring the wall of minions on their way to the BBEG (since they'll be "fleeing" from the guys they've just pased), but the specifics of movement across the board no longer apply.

It may not solve every possible problem, but I've been doing similar in some of my own games, and it's worked just fine.

Here is something I've posted earlier, based on original Star Wars d20 and my own observations.

I'll lay out the basics of (one way) of removing AoO in order to simplify the game. The main issues seem to be

1. Situations which provoke AoO
2. Feats related to AoO
3. Reach or related bonuses which are lost.

1. Any normal action which used to cause an AoO just can't be done. You can't use your bow when you are adjacent to a foe (you have to back up 5ft and shoot), you can't dig a potion out of your bag when in combat, you can't just run past an armed enemy, In order to get out of combat you have to use the withdraw option etc. The exceptions to this general principle are special actions such as bull rush, disarm, trip, grapple etc. As per SWd20 these can be attempted at any time without incurring any problems. Attacking someone with reach is handled slightly differently, see #3.

2. Some feats change. In SWd20 the Mobility feat allowed you to ignore movement restrictions in combat that were introduced in lieu of AoO i.e. you *could* run right past someone. Combat Reflexes doesn't really have any purpose and can be dropped from the list of feats. Tumble can still be used to attempt to get past/through someone but failure on the check means you stop right next to the guy rather than incur an AoO.

3. Reach weapons. We're simplifying, right? So to take reach into account we can just use a simple circumstance rule - if you have better reach than them you get +2 to attack them. If you have worse reach than them you get -2 to attack them. If you both have the same degree of reach then you have neither benefit or penalty. (Personally I'd probably use +/-4 rather than +/-2, because it really seems to be pretty difficult to get past a reach weapon from everything I've seen in practise. Others may have different experience but we've got to go with what we know, eh? I've used +/-2 here because that is the "DM's friend" figure from the DMG for favourable/unfavourable circumstances, which seems to cover the issue.)



These principles simplify combat and makes it quicker, (although it might mean that more interesting manouvres get used too). It also greatly facilitates melee without miniatures.

If there are any AoO situations that I've overlooked here please remind me, I'd like to try to cover all the bases.

rkanodia said:

The only remaining thing is for chases; it becomes very difficult to do anything to a person with the same speed as you while you're running. You catch up to them, you can't do anything, they run away. Repeat until someone fails a Con check. Perhaps the Run action will have to be my exception. "When you start the Run action, you draw attacks of opportunity as described in the SRD."

Click to expand...

Just to highlight that if you use the simple rules I've noted above this doesn't become a problem - you can only break away from combat by doing a withdraw. If they have a straight line to you they can charge attack you, if they haven't they have to run after you until such a time when they can get a charge attack off - hence chases going round corners and stuff which would be cool.

1. Any normal action which used to cause an AoO just can't be done. You can't use your bow when you are adjacent to a foe (you have to back up 5ft and shoot), you can't dig a potion out of your bag when in combat, you can't just run past an armed enemy, In order to get out of combat you have to use the withdraw option etc. The exceptions to this general principle are special actions such as bull rush, disarm, trip, grapple etc. As per SWd20 these can be attempted at any time without incurring any problems. Attacking someone with reach is handled slightly differently, see #3.

Click to expand...

Actually, there's no reason simply to say they can't do this (something I'm not fond of telling a PC anyway). However, there's a good way to make them not want to.

Let's take your logic from step 3 and apply it here. If you take an action that would draw an AoO in the old system, you suffer a -4 to any rolls involved, and your opponent gains a +4 on his next round of attacks against you.

Simple, efficient, still has negative consequences for doing stupid/risky stuff, follows a consistent set of rules with your other suggestions, and eliminates AoOs. Quite possibly a better system, overall, than what I suggested, at least if simplification and speed are the primary goals.

I've been trying to figure out how to get rid of AoO's myself.

Mouseferatu said:

Let's take your logic from step 3 and apply it here. If you take an action that would draw an AoO in the old system, you suffer a -4 to any rolls involved, and your opponent gains a +4 on his next round of attacks against you.

Click to expand...

This may not be good enough, as it doesn't seem to refrain a spellcaster from casting in melee (I've been trying to find a way to make spellcasting in combat more risky over here.)

Mouseferatu said:

"Fleeing from an opponent with anything other than a full retreat draws an AoO."

Click to expand...

Regarding moverelated AoO's, I'm inclined to go the other way and allow the leaving of a threatened space without the drawing of an AoO, if it's only a single move. If it's a double move (or Run), I'll let it draw an AoO. This was the way it was in 1e, where the you could 'fall back' unhindered, but where your opponent got a free attack (to your back) if you tried to flee (taking a double move).

With this ruling, a spellcaster or an archer can take a move back and still cast or shoot, but with the 5 foot step rule they can already do this (granted, they won't be subject to full attack's the following round, but at least the archer won't be able to 5 foot step back and make a full attack himself...).

To go with this, I'd rule that you must stop moving once entering a threatened space (with no reach, this will leave you in melee range yourself).

So if you want to run past the mooks protecting their shaman, you'll have to move up to them, stop, and maybe make an attack vs one of them if you have only moved your speed. Then the mooks in melee range of you gets to have their attacks. On the next round you can leave them behind and hopefully reach the shaman with a single move action.

What this does for chases, is that it'll cost you something to get away. You either disengage by taking a single move, hoping you won't be followed, which in turn makes it possible for your opponent to move up to you and make an attack. Or you take a double move, suffer an attack as you do so, but this puts you beyond reach of a melee attack on the follwing round, short of a Charge, like what Plane Sailing said.

Or am I making more problems than I'm fixing?

Thanks for all of the ideas! I'm sure I can put something together using these...