AOO's have to go, or be changed

[Will]

You know, I like AoOs, but these are good points about paralized folks.

I'm inclined to houserule an allowance to use AoOs to strike inanimate/helpless foes, but use the 'only one AoO per target per reason' to prevent the odd Combat Reflexes demon from causing trouble.

Because, hey, if you are in combat on a bridge and want to spend a moment to slash at the rope of the bridge? More power to you.

Such AoOs, however, I'd require to be on the person's turn. Hmm.


Oh, and in most campaigns I've been in? 'You'll take an AoO if you do X' is not an absolute deterrant; unless the foe is capable of one-shot kills, often there are actions deemed worth taking the risk.

And you can also strategize it... if you are fighting big dumb tough guys, chances are they don't have Combat Reflexes. So Joe the Sneak goes first while Bob the Fighter moves his initiative back, does something to draw an AoO but has Mobility! Ha, miss!

Then Fighter chugs a potion and the Big Guys don't have a chance to do anything.


Me, I like the strategic element of AoOs.

 

[HeinorNY]

Then you don't have a problem with Concentration checks, but with some specific situations that don't make sense to you. Just make a house rule: Concentration becomes a class skill for everybody.

Most barbarians already do whatever they want in combat, since their d12-laden frames are not really that impressed by a potential AoO.

But then you are creating house rules to fix the house rules you made to fix the RAW.

Thing is, those suggestions would serve better when combined with a reduction of the number of actions in combat that provoke an AoO in the first place. On the other hand, so would the original 3E rules.

That's up for the players. AoO is a kind of thermostatic rule. If you are ok with characters drinking lots of potion in the middle of the combat, just take it away from the AoO list. If you don't want characters talking to each other while fighting, put it into the AoO list. It's easy like that.

 

[xechnao]

Just make a house rule: a spellcaster that casts a spell with no somatic, material, focus and verbal components while paralysed does not provoke AoO's.

Does that make sense? Yes.

AoO is a very metagame and abstract rule, and rules like that such as AC and HP don't make any sense in some very specific situations with we try to deeply rationalize them.

It is clear to me that his point is exactly the other way around.
It is like of him asking "hey, I am having a headache with this here. please fix it" and you answering "hey, there is no need to. You can just cut your head off."

Bad choices should be penalyzed, and you don't choose to be paralyzed.

In D&D players usually choose to be in the wrong place the wrong time. Choosing combat could be a penalyzing action per se.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Just to clarify...I wasn't talking about a fighter having two opponents and ignoring one of them, or having some sort of "spectator". I was talking about a fighter and his opponent simply standing in threat range to another pair of combatants (or a group, if you like). Happens often enough in a combat where there are more enemies than characters. And the second opponent who causes an AoO doesn't even have to stand somewhere in front of the fighter, he just needs to be in threat range. And the point I was trying to make was that it sounds, to me, a bit hokey to say that the fighter can simply turn around halfways, smack that other combatant with an AoO, and resume his own fight, without even a penalty or danger, if usually making two attacks with a full attack option causes you to forfeit movement, and simply trying to disarm your opponent already causes an AoO.

Oh I understood what you were trying to say but my point was there is NO situation where an opponent can be within melee range and yet not be challenged by the fighter.

Say Alice is fighting an Orc and Bob is fighting a Kobold. If the kobold gets within 5 ft of Alice (or whatever her threatened range is) she will spend a bit of energy making sure the kobold wont stab her EVEN THOUGH she is concentrating on the Orc. You mention 'in front of the fighter' and 'turn around halfways' which makes me think you are concerned about facing. As soon as an opponent enters your threatened range - front, back, side, it doesn't matter - I view a character as spending some of the 6 seconds of the round making sure that the opponent is threatened. [Sidenote - I think this is why facing became a square in 3.5 - during a fight the creature is always assumed to be turning]

xechnao has posted some house rules that seem ... excessive (-10 to stat is a lot, -10 to modifier is massive, maybe it was a typo). If you want to be simulationist about it I can see having a -2/4 penalty to hit on the AoO and maybe a reduction in damage as well just to illustrate that it was a lucky blow that connected and not a planned attack.

A lot of this arguement is based on if we want the rules to fit reality or 'reality' to fit the rules. Hopeful 4th ed's reduction in AoO triggers will remove the oddities like casting still silent spells whilst paralized.

 

[demadog]

While I think I undertand the point, I have to disagree. AoOs are one of the most graceful ways I've seen so far to inject real-time actions into a turn-based game. The penalty for freezing in combat is not that you recieve an AoO, but that you can no longer make AoOs yourself. If I had a complaint about them, I would say that there were too many ways to avoid them through the use of feats and skills.

However, from the few snipets I've seen from 4e, it seems they may have come up with another mechanic that allows swift actions to take the place of AoOs. I can't wait to see if this is indeed the case, and if it works any better.

 

[xechnao]

xechnao has posted some house rules that seem ... excessive (-10 to stat is a lot, -10 to modifier is massive, maybe it was a typo). If you want to be simulationist about it I can see having a -2/4 penalty to hit on the AoO and maybe a reduction in damage as well just to illustrate that it was a lucky blow that connected and not a planned attack.

-10 penalty to the modifier, not to the stat: that is a fighter strikes with a -10 penalty to attack and to damage but he will not suddenly become encumbered due to excesive weight.
A penalty so high ensures that at low levels, where hit points are low, AoO will usually score on criticals and then, the damage that they will deliver will be relatively not too high.

Yet I house out the rule to have so many AoO as attacks for fighters. A fighter has an infinite number of AsoO: that is if 10 minions storm through one's threat range, even at level 1 there will be a moderate chance to hit a couple of times, without taking too much risk.

Alternatively, a more aggressive and risky fighter may choose to take the dex mod penalty insted of the str one. At mid levels his chances of hiting and doing damage will be considerably higher but of course he will be taking some risk if the foes in battle notice that he is exposing himself and can take the risk to face his AsoO.

OTOH Rogues or dexterous characters are not penalized while delivering AoO, nor to their offense or to their defense but their attacks do considerably less damage, than say of a barbarian usually can deliver. Rogues get as much AoO as their attacks and that is usually only one, but they are nasty to know how to backstab, so turning your back to a rogue and provoking an attack of opportunity can very well be your very last thing to do if the rogue so wishes

Ironically I find the house rule in spirit with what the 4th Ed is about with fighters being defenders and rogues strikers.


BTW, we have the alternative rule of concentration checks to lower the penalty. As playtested though the penalties are ok as they are. But if in a fight, say, seem not appropriate or too harsh there may still be given a reasonable DN for a concentration check to have the penalties halved. Players will not find this inconsitent because the full rule is that the DN for the concentration check is usually too high for them. Of course those talented on concentration checks will have better chances, but this is balanced with the fact that they will have rather compromised their other combat bonus modifiers allready.


EDIT: If you have not noticed in some post above the rule is that one has to choose either a -10 str mod or a -10 dex mod -whatever he wishes is best for the occasion. Hope it makes more sense now if it did not before.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Oh I understood what you were trying to say but my point was there is NO situation where an opponent can be within melee range and yet not be challenged by the fighter.

Say Alice is fighting an Orc and Bob is fighting a Kobold. If the kobold gets within 5 ft of Alice (or whatever her threatened range is) she will spend a bit of energy making sure the kobold wont stab her EVEN THOUGH she is concentrating on the Orc. You mention 'in front of the fighter' and 'turn around halfways' which makes me think you are concerned about facing. As soon as an opponent enters your threatened range - front, back, side, it doesn't matter - I view a character as spending some of the 6 seconds of the round making sure that the opponent is threatened. [Sidenote - I think this is why facing became a square in 3.5 - during a fight the creature is always assumed to be turning]

Hmm, I think you hit the nail on the head there why I have some problems with the assumptions underlying D&D combat by now. It's probably just me, but it doesn't make sense to me to imagine a group of combatants to have their attention somehow spread all over their thread range. Doesn't jive with me. I always work with "facing" when I imagine combat, because there's only a 120° angle of vision a "normal" human being has, and only so much attention that can be spread around when some bloodthirsty humanoid is trying to disembowel you in front (and usually you try to keep the worst enemy in front, as far as I know). I simply cannot agree to your analysis of the example you gave...personal preference, definitely not personal first-hand combat experience. Facing simply makes more sense to me, even though I'm not that much of a..uhm...simulationist(?), really. Same way I always tend to clash with the "allround awareness" that initiative in D&D grants the combatants, but I haven't found a better system yet that is as easy to handle in combat.

 

[xechnao]

Hmm, I think you hit the nail on the head there why I have some problems with the assumptions underlying D&D combat by now. It's probably just me, but it doesn't make sense to me to imagine a group of combatants to have their attention somehow spread all over their thread range. Doesn't jive with me. I always work with "facing" when I imagine combat, because there's only a 120° angle of vision a "normal" human being has, and only so much attention that can be spread around when some bloodthirsty humanoid is trying to disembowel you in front (and usually you try to keep the worst enemy in front, as far as I know). I simply cannot agree to your analysis of the example you gave...personal preference, definitely not personal first-hand combat experience. Facing simply makes more sense to me, even though I'm not that much of a..uhm...simulationist(?), really. Same way I always tend to clash with the "allround awareness" that initiative in D&D grants the combatants, but I haven't found a better system yet that is as easy to handle in combat.

Combat in D&D is a combat of dungeon mess. It is a skirmish, not regular formations combat and this is why you have AoO first place. Regarding AsoO facing is not relevant for anyone. Now, as a move based on initiative, facing is relevant and you can be flanked this way.
Only rogues in our house rulles can enjoy flank bonuses with AsoO, because well they are specialized at this.

 

[LostSoul]

I think you just summarized what the problem with AoO is: it's a metagaming rule, and as such it cannot be fully explained in character.

That doesn't sound like a problem to me.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Have we mentioned Cleave off of AoOs yet? Just because my buddy did something foolish, provoking an AoO and getting killed, why should I get a free (Cleave) attack against me? What did I ever do?