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

[Storm Raven]

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.

God forbid a player put together a character that is good at what the player wants his character to be, and have rules to guide him as to how to make the character he wants.

The rules are the only method that players have to predict the capabilities of their characters. Making the abilities of their characters entirely dependent upon DM fiat because of what the DM thinks is "realistic" or not is very poor design. Many DMs, for example, think weapon speed factors make sense, whereas I consider weapon speed factor rules to be entirely nonsensical. If you make as large a portion of the game as movement dependent upon that sort of DM fiat, then you may as well not have a game system, and just play "let's pretend".

 

[Storm Raven]

Leading to the game becoming buried in corner-case rules and rulings. Yecch!!!

"Try it and see" is the ideal DM's response! In-game, the PC has no idea whether the chain will hold her weight, whether the foe will have moved in the meantime, and so on. The DM simply assigns an unspoken DC to the task and rolls, then says yes you made it, or no you didn't make it, or you're now lying on the floor wearing the remains of a chandelier.

Making judgement calls like this is just part of being a DM. If a player asks "On a quick glance, do I think I can use the chandelier to swing across to relieve our outnumbered Cleric?", the DM can then give rough odds as in "It'll reach, but you're not at all sure about that chain - it looks a little rusty - and it's possible some enemies below might get free shots at you as you swing by overhead. Still, if you want to try it, roll me a d20." But if a player doesn't ask, just says "I'm swinging on the chandelier to relieve the Cleric" then the DM has to make a snap judgement.

I fail to see the problem.

The idea isn't to fill the game with rules to cover every possible situation.

The idea is to provide rules for things that come up during play often. Moving around during combat is something that comes up often. Tryin to get past one opponent to get to another is something that comes up fairly often. Having rules that say "you can't get past him at all" is clearly unsatisfactory to lots of gamers. Having rules that say "you can't get past him at all, but you might if you think of swinging on the chandelier, jumping off the steps, or standing on one foot while singning Jingle-Bells and your DM thinks that is a good way to move around" is poor rules design.

The rules should cover movement during combat. The rules should be clear on this, since it comes up in almost every session of almost every D&D game.

 

[Emirikol]

Interesting topic. I was reading about the AOO's predecessor: +2 to hit if you retreat ~ Basic D&D Rulebook 1981

jh

 

[Nomad4life]

No.

Just... No.

It should neve have existed in the first place. Time to do the right thing and put that rabid animal down.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There is, of course, room for improvement, but I think AoO should stay.

They're actually a pretty simple mechanic and can quickly become second nature to deal with. Sure, they impact your actions, but very, very rarely do I actually see anyone draw an AoO. They're just so easy to avoid -- don't do dumb stuff.

If you want to talk about red herrings and strawmen, it's the notion that AoOs are time-consuming or complex. IME, I get more questions about the +5/10/15 bonuses to Cure Lt/Md/et al. spells than I do on AoOs.

Nah, in campaigns I've been in, AoOs cause more trouble. Not because players don't know when they occur, but because they desperately loop and otherwise avoid actions that provoke AoOs. Thinking takes time. Answering the CL/M/S/W question takes less than three seconds.

 

[WayneLigon]

Attacks of Opportunity. Boy-howdy, what a concept.
Do you think AoO needs to be kept or discarded when the next iteration of DnD is developed?

I like it in concept but the rules for it need to be simplified. I understand them but it really, really seems to be a hard concept for new people to grasp. I'm playing with a group of mostly newbies or people that are very casual gamers, and the entire rules set is very confusing to them. Either make it something that can be fully and completely explained in a couple short paragraphs, or dump it.

 

[Storm Raven]

I like it in concept but the rules for it need to be simplified. I understand them but it really, really seems to be a hard concept for new people to grasp. I'm playing with a group of mostly newbies or people that are very casual gamers, and the entire rules set is very confusing to them. Either make it something that can be fully and completely explained in a couple short paragraphs, or dump it.

I can (and for new players, do) explain AoOs from movement in three short, easy to understand sentences. I always find it odd that people talk about how hard it is for people to understand how AoOs work. The rule isn't hard to grasp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Yeah, that ticked me off too.

For phalanxes and tumble I added a house rule that states:

people with one handed piercing weapons may fight in close ranks, taking half the normal space (e.g. 2.5' for a medium creature), but have their dex bonus reduced to +0 just like some heavy armors (they are NOT treated as having been denied their dex bonus). Close ranks are considered impassable for purposes of tumbling and movement (even for allies). Members of close ranks receive a +4 circumstance bonus to resist bullrush & trip.

I've also added a "body shield" that requires a special proficiency due to the large size. The body shield grants +2 AC under normal conditions but provides an additional +1 cover bonus to the weilder and those on each side in close ranks. If you read closely, that means the person on the end gets a +2 shield & +2 cover AC bonus while the person in the center gets a +2 shield and +3 cover AC bonus.

In the vein of the Complete combat actions I have a feat/class feature that grants phalanx movement, a +4 bonus to crossing unstable terrain in a phalanx. It also allows ranks within a phalanx to change places but it requires holding/delaying action so that the rank change occurs on the same action.

There is a dwarf-only feat that allows use of slashing weapons (e.g. axes) in phalanxes.

Can you tell I like the idea of phalanxes?

You should check out OGL Anciets. Lots of Phalanks featy goodness. The combat system is a bit more complex (Armor has DR listings for each type of weapon damage), but it was designed to simulate historically accurate combat, if that's what you wanted.

Personally, I let fighters roll Knowlegde (Tactics) to counter tumblers. Works well enough.

To the OP: Keep the AoO's.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't get the confusion on what provokes.

Moving through/out of a threatened square (not into)
Doing a risky special attack (trip, grapple)
Using a bow or casting a spell
Using most magical do-hickies.
Misc actions that distract you from combat.
5' steps never provoke AoOs.

That's it! AoOs come up in our game so infrequently we rarely need more than this to run them.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I can (and for new players, do) explain AoOs from movement in three short, easy to understand sentences. I always find it odd that people talk about how hard it is for people to understand how AoOs work. The rule isn't hard to grasp.

Remember, the average player has an Int of 10. That means 50% have an int of 8 or less, to compensate for the ones with int 14, 16, and 18, of which there seem to be quite a few. While it is only a DC 11 to understand the rules, an int of 8 means that they can't take 10, and will fail to understand the rules 50% of the time.

(I will note that it's always the same people who fail to understand the rules)