Bringing common sense to AoOs

[Ridley's Cohort]

Attacks of opportunity do not exist to bring greater realism to combat. They exist to force decision points in combat.

The fundamental idea behind an AoO is, "I can take an action to help my character gain an advantage, but that action puts me (and possibly my allies) at risk from my opponent. I must deal with that risk, either by not taking the action, by using tactics or abilities to negate the risk, or by letting the opponent swing and hoping the dice fall my way." The decision is what's important, not the verisimilitude.

True, to a point. But decision points that cannot be justified within a broad definition of versimilitude do not generally belong in a roleplaying game at all. If I want to play an abstract strategy game, I own enough of those to fill three closets.

 

[Scion]

It's under the definition of 'Attack Roll'.

SRD:
Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.
Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.
ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.


Oh? I dont see it.

Also, in the glossary it doesnt talk about multiple attacks in this flurry. Nor does it in one section about attack rolls. Only a single section even mentions it.

Of course then certain spells dont really make any sense (such as true strike). Seems like that was just a bad piece of flavor text which doesnt qualify everywhere. Merely someone putting something in that doesnt actually work. Too bad it wasnt removed, but then there are other parts of the rules that werent clarified properly ::shrugs::

Certainly. If nobody's provoking one, they miss. Where's the problem?

That it doesnt follow the rules. One cannot simply choose to make an aoo whenever one is floating around.

While being able to make an aoo when you have no way of knowing it was provoked may be possible because the rules dont specifically say, 'if you have no way of knowing that it happens then you dont get to make the roll' I think it is pretty silly to assume otherwise

More to the point, why would one assume that you can make this attack at any random time such as that? Sounds like a bit of a gray area (perhaps they simply assumed, wrongly, that it would be clear that if you have no way of knowing about something then you cant directly do something about it.. too bad for them if so).

 

[Hypersmurf]

SRD:
Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Not in the SRD. In the rules.

PHB p139: Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.

That's not flavour. That's the definition of what the attack roll represents.

Of course then certain spells dont really make any sense (such as true strike).

Why not? True Strike doesn't apply to your next swing of the sword; it applies to your next attack roll.

That it doesnt follow the rules. One cannot simply choose to make an aoo whenever one is floating around.

Hmm? You're not making an AoO. An AoO has an attack roll. Unless someone provokes one, you aren't making an attack roll.

While being able to make an aoo when you have no way of knowing it was provoked may be possible because the rules dont specifically say, 'if you have no way of knowing that it happens then you dont get to make the roll' I think it is pretty silly to assume otherwise

I disagree. Throughout the round, you are waving your sword in menacing fashion. Normally, most of those are deflected harmlessly. But if someone - even while they're invisible - leaves a big opening, there's a chance one of those menacing waves (that would normally have been blocked) will find that gap. In 3E, this was represented by an AoO.

In 3.5, that chance has been removed (since someone with Total Concealment cannot provoke an AoO).

Sounds like a bit of a gray area (perhaps they simply assumed, wrongly, that it would be clear that if you have no way of knowing about something then you cant directly do something about it.. too bad for them if so).

You don't need to know the gap is there to gain advantage from it.

If I have three tennis balls, and a bucket with a lid on it, and a blindfold...

... and I drop the three tennis balls one at a time towards the bucket...

... none of them will go in.

If you remove the lid just before I drop one of the tennis balls, the ball will go in... even though I had no way of knowing you'd removed the lid. My knowledge is not necessary for me to gain advantage from the removal of the bucket's defences.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Hyp is pretty much right on in his reading of the rules here.

Something to remember is that the SRD is not the rules and should not be used as a rules source. It was posted for a completely different reason. It was posted for a purely legal reason. That being to clearly point out what is OGC and free game for publishers to use when creating something D&D related. People just happen to use it as a rules source hence complicating the issue.

Another AoO issue specified in 3.5 is that an AoO can not be made against an opponent with any type of cover not jsut concealment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Another AoO issue specified in 3.5 is that an AoO can not be made against an opponent with any type of cover not jsut concealment.

Well, that was also the case in 3E - half-cover or better. In 3.5, there's no gradation of cover - just 'cover' and 'total cover' - so the effect is the same as the 3E rule.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

irdeggman is right IIRC about concealment... invisible opponents still provoked AoOs in 3.0 IIRC, in 3.5 they don't.

Edit: As hyp posted above...

 

[Thanee]

...but you have to make your attack rolls normally and you cannot perform a CDG.

Naturally, since CDG is not an attack.

The flip side to this house-rule is that you cannot make AOOs when you are performing a CDG.

Well, then you should also not be allowed to do AoO, if you cast a spell on your action, or did any other action than a melee attack, or not?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

Not in the SRD. In the rules.

Yet again hyp, I discussed where and which part says what. The glossary does not say that, the initial part talking about attack rolls does not, only a third part farther into that section talks about it.

So you are assuming special rules that make an attack roll based on combat is different than an attack roll based on combat (melee attack vs ranged attack). Go for it. I understand that your interpretation comes from the book, however I feel that whoever put that line there just put it in for flavor, because that is what it sounds like. It is an odd way to think about it and not very useful because it causes other problems.

So, I have been talking from the other two sections, which mention nothing about it. The third just seems like flavor text. Flavor text which in this case causes extra problems.

The srd has the printed version of the rules. It takes out examples and flavor text. Its use is so that other games can pick up rules for a similar ruleset.

How many rules that are in one are different in the other?

That's not flavour. That's the definition of what the attack roll represents.

Not according to the other sections, which only talk about attacking and hitting.

::shrugs:: All it does is create problems. Where as with the other there arent any. Where is the problem?

Once again however, I have said previously, multiple times now, that the one section is simply something I consider an error. I even made mention of it. No need to repost it and state what it says yet again.

Hmm? You're not making an AoO. An AoO has an attack roll. Unless someone provokes one, you aren't making an attack roll.

Which is why you cant do it and the comment I was responding to that you made was incorrect.

I disagree. Throughout the round, you are waving your sword in menacing fashion. Normally, most of those are deflected harmlessly. But if someone - even while they're invisible - leaves a big opening, there's a chance one of those menacing waves (that would normally have been blocked) will find that gap. In 3E, this was represented by an AoO.

And I disagree with this as well. With what you have just said here the mechanics of the aoo would make no sense. They would not mesh with each other, it would simply be a pile of different, and conflicting, conditions which are then applied to the metagaming plane for recourse. But, since there are feats which can make one better at such things (emulating actual training) and there is 'choice' there then that simply makes no sense.

If it has to do with randomly swinging around and an opening being there then you should not make the person choose a square. They already did a lot of 'random swinging' into the empty squares and the only reason they are getting this aoo is because they randomly swung into the place at the correct time.

In other words, yet another part of the puzzle that is conflicting and does not fit with the rest.

Aoo's are a reaction to a different situation, a reaction that takes actual choice. One has to choose which weapon to use, one has to choose whether or not to do it, one has to choose what sort of attack to make, one has to choose what feats to use, etc.

So you are saying that one is randomly swinging around, this invisible guy provokes an aoo, the character then has to choose which square to attack to (even though they were 'randomly swinging' and the only reason they got this attack was because that random swing has a chance of hitting the person), gets to choose which weapon happens to be in that square, can say that he was actually useing his improved trip feat for this aoo (somehow he was trying to trip the guy he didnt know was there), can apply any other feats/spells/powers/whatever, resolves the attack, and still might not even know that the guy is there?

Or, we could simply look at the bit of text as flavor text and avoid the whole problem.

One of the two

In 3.5, that chance has been removed (since someone with Total Concealment cannot provoke an AoO).

Probably since they realized that not everyone was assuming that if you have no way of knowing about something then you cant react to it.

 

[Scion]

You don't need to know the gap is there to gain advantage from it.

If I have three tennis balls, and a bucket with a lid on it, and a blindfold...

... and I drop the three tennis balls one at a time towards the bucket...

... none of them will go in.

If you remove the lid just before I drop one of the tennis balls, the ball will go in... even though I had no way of knowing you'd removed the lid. My knowledge is not necessary for me to gain advantage from the removal of the bucket's defences.

As for this though, this is how regular attacks work. You have 3 tennis balls (3 attacks) and you are looking for a way into the bucket.

With the lid on your target effectively has inpenetrable defenses (ac, dr, whatever). But, with the proper weapon and/or training and/or situation (you caught them with their armor off in their house) you are able to get through and strike them.

One attack, one dropping off the ball, one roll.

Sounds like a perfect example of how a normal attack spread works vs a creature with impenetrable defenses except for a specific weakness. Pretty akin to 3.0 though, in 3.5 most creatures dr have gone down so it is more like a semipermiable lid (or that one in twenty chance of hitting that hole in the side just big enough for a tennis ball to fit through).

 

[spacecrime.com]

True, to a point. But decision points that cannot be justified within a broad definition of versimilitude do not generally belong in a roleplaying game at all. If I want to play an abstract strategy game, I own enough of those to fill three closets.

You're certainly welcome to that opinion. But that's a question of philosophy and taste, not mechanics. Most D&D game mechanics are abstract.

You may like that, you may dislike it, you may change it or not to fit your own needs, but the game as written pays almost no attention to reality outside its own structure.

cheers,