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

[wayne62682]

Honestly I dislike AoOs. I feel they force the game to become tactical movement exercises whenever it's battle time. We didn't need it in 2nd edition, but with 3rd now I immediatly lose all sense of immersion in the story once I see the minis and battlemat come out, and it's into "Warhammer Mode". I spend more time thinking of how to tactically maneuver to get into position without provoking an AoO than I do playing up my character in combat. My group as a whole tends to not do roleplaying during combat because we are too focused on the mat and minis to stay in character; the fact that certain things you have to denote what type of action it is doesn't help. I find it kills the mood if you have to say that you're using a Free action to speak "Lidda, flank him!" or that I'm using a standard action so Regdar can drink a potion.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the existing AOO rules need to be scrapped, but the concept should be retained.

Agreed, AOOs fill an important function in a turn based combat, as many on this thread have already commented on. However, I think AOOs are far from the ideal way of doing it. An entire extra attack on you is too painful, and its too all or nothing. I think a cleaner, faster system could be developed. For example, you could take penalties on your AC in the next round if you do an action that would provoke an AOO, options like this.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So what do you expect to stop the foes from going right part the tanks to the unarmored characters?

How about this:

DM: The fighter steps up to block you, you'll have to take him out before you can get to the wizard lobbing fireballs.

I detest AOOs. they slow the game down and players concentrate on mechanically avoiding AOOS instead of heroic combat. I hope they fling them into the next galaxy.

 

[Kormydigar]

Honestly I dislike AoOs. I feel they force the game to become tactical movement exercises whenever it's battle time.

I hear you loud and clear. The main reason for this is because the mechanic is so "free" for the attacker. The defender is the one who has to worry about every little action in combat.If the attacker had to wait, or had some other price to pay for making an AOO then I think there would be far fewer of them made during a typical combat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The reasoning for this is so a fighter can "hold the line" against multiple foes. By the laws of grid-based combat, if a fighter is holding the line against three charging foes (each wants to get past him to get to the mage who fireballed them a round ago) The fighter could only block one (the one he's litterally standing in front of) but the other two get a clear pass.

M = Mage
F = Fighter 1
1, 2, 3 = Rival Fighters
X = Open Square

X X M X X
X X X X X
X X F X X
X X X X X
X 1 2 3 X

2 is dead blocked, 1 and 3 are going to make mage-kabobs. However, that AoO makes fighter 1 (or 3, or both if he has combat reflexes) think twice about it. F is going to get at least one AoO (which could be a crit, or just a solid hit) and dead block 2 (unless 2 overruns, which is something else entirely). So lets say he AoOs 3, stops 2, and lets one 1. He didn't drop 3 with his AoO, but 3 is now more messed up than normal. The mage still is screwed, but maybe his shocking grasp can finish off 3...

This is actually an argument for NOT using AoO and using a different mechanism such as Zone of Control (as was used very successfully in Star Wars d20). Anyone can run past the fighter and suck up the AoO; with a zone of control mechanism they can't (and more people can be blocked without resorting to combat reflexes and a high dex).

Cheers

 

[2WS-Steve]

Personally, I think AoO's work fine -- but as a designer, given all the griping one sees about them, I'd devote a lot of playtest time looking into alternatives.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Agreed, AOOs fill an important function in a turn based combat, as many on this thread have already commented on. However, I think AOOs are far from the ideal way of doing it. An entire extra attack on you is too painful, and its too all or nothing. I think a cleaner, faster system could be developed. For example, you could take penalties on your AC in the next round if you do an action that would provoke an AOO, options like this.

In Spycraft 2.0, for instance, anything that would 'provoke an AoO' in D&D makes you flatfooted (or it's equivalent, I forget the details). That is a nice reflection of a penalty that you sometimes really don't want to take!

 

[reanjr]

I think they should be kept but limited in scope. They should not apply to simple movement. Weapons should have reach and engaging a target that has a weapon with greater reach than your own should cause something similar to an AoO. Non-combative actions such as rummaging throuhg a pack or casting a spell should cause an AoO. Certain special maneuvers such as grappling should cause an AoO from your target only.

Some people state that AoOs work as a nice crutch to simulate simultaneity "prevent people magically running past each other because everybody else is 'frozen in time' because it's not their turn". There is a much better way to handle this by allowing movement as an immediate action.

 

[Kalendraf]

I prefer AoO's to some of the alternatives. Certain actions should have consequences, and I'd prefer a system where an action like Casting in combat is allowed, yet provokes an AoO, as opposed to being flatly disallowed.

However, the exact handling of AoO's and the ways they can be completely avoided (concentration check, tumble check, etc) seems to need some work. There should never be an easily reachable number that makes someone immune to AoO's, yet in many cases the concentration check or tumble check does exactly that. Perhaps if those rolls merely bumped AC in some way it would be better - the opponent could still attack when the AoO is provoked, and would still have a chance to hit on a natural 20.

 

[2WS-Steve]

How about this:

DM: The fighter steps up to block you, you'll have to take him out before you can get to the wizard lobbing fireballs.

I detest AOOs. they slow the game down and players concentrate on mechanically avoiding AOOS instead of heroic combat. I hope they fling them into the next galaxy.

This is what Mearls calls a "Mother, may I?" rule. The player can't simply perform an action by looking at the terrain; instead they have to ask the GM if they're allowed to get past the defender.

By hard-coding the AoO rules players gain more control over the game. They can design their characters with Tumble or other abilities to specifically get around situations like this, or, if using minis and a mat, make their own decisions on how best to fight.

By and large, I think the rules-heaviness of D&D is specifically to put this sort of power in the player's hands.