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

[Gentlegamer]

Attacks of Opportunity (as currently presented) should be removed or moved to optional rules, along with many of the other tactical combat elements.

 

[Storm Raven]

Attacks of Opportunity (as currently presented) should be removed or moved to optional rules, along with many of the other tactical combat elements.

I find it ironic that you have a Gygax quote in your .sig and take this position with respect to D&D.

 

[coyote6]

I vote keep 'em, assuming the rest of the combat system stays the largely the same. As it stands, I think they serve an important role.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I find it ironic that you have a Gygax quote in your .sig and take this position with respect to D&D.

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

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I wouldn't be too sad to see them gone, or at least show up less often. Players get scared to even move their characters or try moves like disarm without the feat. Maybe the withdraw option could get beefed up (eg move at half speed, no movement generated AoOs).

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Absolutely keep them. For those who don't like them, it's much easier to get rid of them than try and add them back in.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

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.

 

[pogre]

Note that those linemen are busy and can't really take time out to take a swat at the safety who is blitzing to the outside or the naked fan running across the field to steal the ball from Bret fav-ray.

OK, here is the offensive line coach in me coming out

We zone block most of our pass pros. Zone blocking means an O-lineman is taking an area, not a man. We absolutely seal certain areas and give up others. If you blitz into our zone you cannot get through - frankly, numbers do not matter. A simple example is our base slide pass pro that calls for a slide gap zone to weak side with the fullback filling backside. You overload strong side and blitz there you got us. Except - then we have a hot read and dump to our receiver for a big gain

If that all makes sense to you - I'm looking for a DB coach

Anyway, more directly on topic - O-linemen using zone techinique are fighting defensively so it is easier to "take on more than one man" in a strict sense. I do not think that's what AoO are about. The combatant is swinging a weapon in an area - an AoO happens in that area - however, you can overwhelm the combatant by having too many "blitzers" in that area.

The thing I like about AoO is it adds some sense of simultaneous combat to a turn-based combat system. It's far from perfect, but I think it is a decent compromise.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I understood all of that...but you probably don't want me as a DB coach. I have some pretty odd ideas about how D should be played. They work out well on computer games (once held an offense to -400 yards with 18 sacks), but I wouldn't dare try them in reality.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

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

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.

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."

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.