Attack of Opportunity -- does it deserve to survive to v.4?

And I must disagree.

While there is a question of specifics, the fact remains that while the DM necessarily must rule on the questions that the rules don't answer, the rules should at least cover the basic range of scenarios. If no one knows how to deal with the most basic mechanical questions, then there are *no* rules.

Gentlegamer said:

Please explain. I have an idea what you may think but don't want to assume.

Click to expand...

Gygax's version of D&D was very wargame-based. More so than the current version. Look at 1e, with its ranges and movement expressed in inches, weapon speeds, AC modifiers, unarmed combat percentile charts and so on and so forth. 1e AD&D, as written, was very much a tactical wargame. A lot of people want to pretend this is a recent thing, but at its core D&D bears markings of its heritage, and always will.

Plane Sailing said:

This comment doesn't match up with my experience of playing OD&D, AD&D1e and 2e.

Click to expand...

Probably because you (like most people) didn't actually play OD&D or 1e AD&D using the actual published rules.

3e has become more focused on tactical wargaming (just take a look at the revision between 3.0 and 3.5 if you don't believe me!) but this has clearly not been the case through the games history. The combat system may have had its roots in Chainmail man to man combat, but it was a long, long way from being a wargame even in those early days.

Click to expand...

1e D&D expressed movement and ranges in inches. It used combat charts, and percentile matrices to resolve combat. It used weapon speed factors, declaring actions, attack roll modifiers by weapon type. The combat system used grid based movement indorrs, and hex based movement outdoors. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether you want to admit it or not, older versions of D&D were more wargame like than the current one.

As for swinging on chandeliers and such - the DMG gives clear guidance for that kind of thing (p25). Your 3.5e DMG actually instructs you, the DM, in the following way

"While the combat actions described in the PHB are numerous and fairly comprehensive, they cannot begin to cover every possible action that a character might want to take. Your job is to make up rules on the spot to handle such things."

Click to expand...

Yes it does. BUt basically, that means the game becomes a round of "mother may I" as the players try to figure out, with no guidance themselves, what sort of thing their PC can and cannot do. Given the number of DMs who cannot handle the effects of clearly defined effects in the rules (such as the result of using various social skills on NPCs), forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about leaving the capabilities of characters entirely up to guessing at what the DM has in mind.

It then goes on to give some specific examples.

In the light of this quote FROM THE DMG, I submit that this whole 'mother may I' issue is a complete red herring, and not related to the D&D we know and love playing.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is a central issue. How much of the game is to be left up to DM fiat, and how much is to be set out ahead of time. Obviosuly, no rule set can cover every possible situation, D&D is too open ended for that. But what it can do, and what it should do is cover situations that are likely to come up on a regular basis. Combat is, and pretty much always has been (and probably always will be) a part of D&D. Movement during combat is a pretty critical element of the game. Therefore, the rules should cover it more fully than "ask your mother if you can".

"While the combat actions described in the PHB are numerous and fairly comprehensive, they cannot begin to cover every possible action that a character might want to take. Your job is to make up rules on the spot to handle such things."

It then goes on to give some specific examples.

In the light of this quote FROM THE DMG, I submit that this whole 'mother may I' issue is a complete red herring, and not related to the D&D we know and love playing.

Click to expand...

Its not a red herring.

The current system now provides a clear-cut rules system for handling a situation that used to be handled by DM's decision...He no longer has to make things up- he has a playtested rule to work with.

We have exchanged off-the-cuff decisions for consistency, not neccessarily a bad thing- and here, I think its a good thing.

Plane Sailing said:

In Spycraft 2.0, for instance, anything that would 'provoke an AoO' in D&D makes you flatfooted (or it's equivalent, I forget the details). That is a nice reflection of a penalty that you sometimes really don't want to take!

Click to expand...

I really like this, as it strengthens rogues, who currently suck in combat, and also makes them play a little more sneaky like. No longer do you have to get in harsh melee with your mediocre AC and d6 hit die, you can just kick back and look out for folks not paying attention, then run up and SNEAK ATTACK! Or you could use a shortbow and RANGED SNEAK ATTACK!

Like somebody already said in this thread: keep AOO, but scrap the whole idea of a 4th edition ...

In a game of Mage I ran a while back, the PC's were in the spirit world when they got attacked by an evil werewolf and his spirit warriors. The werewolf hung back as the spirits (10ft tall, simian, covered in spiky armour plates) attacked the PC's. Everyone would take a shot at the werewolf, cast a spell at the werewolf or move around the spirits to get closer to the werewolf. By the rules, there was no reason they couldn't.

That's why I like AoO's.

Keep 'em, no doubt about that.

(Psi)SeveredHead said:

Insults floating around? Even without that option, there's a lot of thinking going around the gaming table, both in and out of combat.

I get this funny impression that sometimes DMs don't count in-combat tactics as "thinking". There's a lot of thinking going on then - there has to be, since if you don't think your character could die.

Click to expand...

Not meant as an insult. However to me a player spending 10 minutes plotting an intricate tapdance around a map in order to maximize his bonuses and minimize his weaknesses in a supposed wild melee is as irksome as "Mother May I?" may be to you and SR. Instead of "Mother May I" we have the super PC who simply by virtue of being able to cartwheel can pass through a phalanx of spearmen, and when told otherwise pouts and points at the rules. Too many rules lead to situations like that where common sense tells you that it should play out otherwise but when certain players are deprived of the precious certainty of their rules they have hissy fits. It seems they are incapable of or unwilling to try "out of the book" thinking.

Keep the AoOs, although there's probably always some room for improvement.