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

[Kunimatyu]

Personally, I'm fine with AoO's as is. It's the Grapple rules that I'd love to see get an overhaul.

Grapple rules -badly- need an overhaul -- large monsters, even of the nontentacled variety, are way too good at grapples, and you generally can't hit an enemy once you're in a grapple, at all.

AoOs? It's tough -- I like the concept, *but* my players, even experienced ones, mess them up more than just about any rule out there. That says to me that there's probably a more streamlined way of handling "leaving yourself open" in combat.

Honestly, I want to see full attacks leave more than I want to see AoOs leave -- when you can only move 1 square to get all your attacks, things get a little boring.

 

[The_Gneech]

AOOs should stay.

The idea of 4E should be discarded.

Bwahahaha!

Well played, sir.

-TG

 

[Quartz]

Count me pro AoO. Consider Conan or Wallace or Aragorn on the battlefield. It's a massive melee, with lots of foes coming into range while not concentrating on you. So you can smite them.

 

[Glyfair]

Oh no - not uncertainty! GOD FORBID we ever put the player in a situation where he has to actually THINK.

Except he's not the one thinking. I can certainly think about what should happen if I swing for the chandelier. It's pointless if the DM has the diametrically opposed idea of what should happen. In fact, unless I have the most consistant DM in the world, it might be different from what happened when I tried it 3 months ago.

So, I have to break out of the game, tell the DM what I want to do and ask if he thinks it might work. I might even have to argue my position. Even worse, I might have one of the DMs that like to say "try it and see." Great, my masterful fighter then has to rely on my judgement of the DMs opinion about a tricky maneuver.

Sure, that can work. It works a lot better if there is a mechanic that deals with that sort of situation and can work from it.

 

[Stalker0]

AOOs are another thing that bog down play. Sometimes I hate using a battlemat because players count out each and every square of movement, being careful to maneuver in such a way as to not provoke an AOO.

This is another major problem I have with AOOs, I think they are too harsh a condition. An extra attack could mean a lot of damage for the player, with that kind of risk you need a major reward, and they're are few combat actions out there worth that kind of risk, especially when the action itself is risky.

I would much prefer an "easier penalty" than AOOs. I want to have a mechanic where if a guy runs past the fighter he may have some penalty. But I don't want it to be so big that the players will count out every little square to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[frankthedm]

It's like watching someone play chess. "If I don't take my finger off the mini, it hasn't moved!"

B.S. you move the fig, you move.

 

[Storm Raven]

Oh no - not uncertainty! GOD FORBID we ever put the player in a situation where he has to actually THINK.

Guessing what secret combination the DM has in mind to accomplish your objective is not thinking. If you want to play a game of "mother may I", there are game systems that do that far better than D&D. Trying to make D&D into that sort of game pretty much runs counter to the basic design of D&D with its very clear and deep wargame roots.

 

[Storm Raven]

AOOs are another thing that bog down play. Sometimes I hate using a battlemat because players count out each and every square of movement, being careful to maneuver in such a way as to not provoke an AOO. It's like watching someone play chess. "If I don't take my finger off the mini, it hasn't moved!"

I've imposed a rule: no counting squares ahead of time. If you want to cast a spell, fire a weapon, move, or otherwise do something that involves ranges, you have to decide what you are doing and then count squares. If your spell can't reach the target, or you can't move to where you want to, and so on, then you just don't get that far. But you don't get to carefully count out your options one by one and then choose which one is most advantageous.

 

[IcyCool]

AOO's are pretty much the only thing that has ever kept any 3.0/3.5 D&D combat I've played in or run on a battlemat with minis.

As a wargamer, I enjoy that immensly. However, as someone who never really bothered with minis and a battlemat before that (for RPGs, of course), I can see the appeal of removing them.

 

[Wiseblood]

Lets take a look back a 2e. Were there AoO's for moving? Did it cause a problem? As I recall good guys and bad guys could move and use all of their attacks. Mages had fewer HP and fewer spells. How often did the bad guys run into the middle of your group, ignoring the fighter, just to swing on the Wizard? AoO's are not a bad concept just poorly realized just like the crappy grapple system. BTW I was asking about grapple on anothe thread.