Eliminating Attacks of Opportunity

Are there any game balance issues if I just eliminate AOA's altogether? I knopw some feats and whatnot will be rendered useless, but other than that, any problems?

Sado said:

Are there any game balance issues if I just eliminate AOA's altogether? I knopw some feats and whatnot will be rendered useless, but other than that, any problems?

Click to expand...

Moved to House Rules.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

Why? They make the game more interesting, provide more opportunity to use tactics, and make running away more difficult. All good things.

-The Souljourner

I think I don't like the fact that it basically amounts to a free extra attack. I may be wrong in my reading of the rules, but the way I understand it you get your regular attack and then if someone leaves themselves open you get another attack. Why do you get this attack if you wouldn't get it normally (i.e. if they didn't do something that provoked an attack of opportunity)?

I've never been entirely sure of how they worked exactly, I just make sure not to do anything that would provoke one.

The idea in D&D is that for the whole round you're sparring, dodging, feinting, parrying and have one likely chance (attack roll) to actually land a hit. If someone fails to take up the spar/dodge/feint/parry thing then your normally-parried blows wind up hitting them more often than normal.

In every version of D&D (since 1st), if you're in melee and run away, your opponent gets one free attack on your backside as you turn and run off. That's the origin of what is now "attacks of opportunity", applied to a bunch of other stuff.

If you wanted to streamline it you might just prohibit anything that now causes AOOs. Once in melee you cannot:
- Move.
- Cast spells.
- Fire ranged weapons.
- Attack unarmed.
- You can run away but take a free rear attack.

You're right. Sometimes I forget that one "attack" is not one swing at the enemy, but a whole round worth of swinging, stabbing, dodging, etc. Too many computer rpg's, I guess

That makes it a little easier to stomach.

And isn't that how they used to do it, just forbid you from doing those things in a threatened area? I guess AOA's allow you a little more flexibility (at the expense of your ability to avoid damage).

Yes, exactly. Lots of people apparently prefer the option to choose the dangerous course of action, even if that complicates the rules a lot.

For me, I couldn't live without them now.

I've been running games using a lot of other systems lately, and one thing that bothers me is the ability of a character to disengage from combat without penalty or some similar thing.

It is perfectly possible to run a game without AoO and have fun. There are some changes to the rules needed and some feats change too.

The original Star Wars d20 rules didn't have AoO and worked fine in the adventures we played with them. Previous editions of D&D didn't have them (except for rules of a free swipe at anyone who ran away from you in combat whereever they appeared!). Other games don't have them.

There is another thread in the house rules forum where I've gone into some detail about the changes necessary to do this (search is a bit slow at the moment or I'd point you there)

(nb dcollins idea that melee involves a whole series of sparring feinting dodging with one chance for a good hit derived originally from the AD&D 1 minute melee round. Does it actually say that in 3e? It doesn't really work descriptively for missile weapons or thrown weapons where ammunition is consumed. Many people using the 6 second melee round equate each attack roll with their actual attack I'm sure.)

Plane Sailing said:

(Snip)It doesn't really work descriptively for missile weapons or thrown weapons where ammunition is consumed. Many people using the 6 second melee round equate each attack roll with their actual attack I'm sure.)

Click to expand...

Please note the lack of Ranged Attacks of Opportunity.

- Kemrain the Blunt.