Problems with removing attacks of opportunity?

[Sir Robilar]

Hi,

Just recently I got into Pathfinder and now I´m wondering how easy it would be to remove attacks of opportunity from the game? Would this in any way unbalance the system? Reason is that I prefer to play without miniatures, which I find cumbersome to do when using AoO´s.

 

[Mark Chance]

Just recently I got into Pathfinder and now I´m wondering how easy it would be to remove attacks of opportunity from the game? Would this in any way unbalance the system? Reason is that I prefer to play without miniatures, which I find cumbersome to do when using AoO´s.

I've done just that. I never really like AoO to begin with. Whatever "golly gee" factor they have had quickly faded. Removing them is a piece of cake. Just do it. As d20 games such as Mutants & Masterminds have demonstrated, the game can run just fine without them.

Spes Magna's Fencing & Firearms (still in initial playtest stage) is both Pathfinder-compatible and gets rid of AoO.

 

[Aegir]

Aside from a few feats/skills that become worthless/nearly worthless, there really isn't a huge problem with just yanking them out.

You may want to consider what that does for spellcasting, though. If you're fine with the fact that if there are no AoOs, then casters technically have no restrictions for casting in melee, then cool. Its just something to keep in mind.

 

[Dalzig]

Personally, I'd just make it so only attacks or spells cause AOs. That should be easy enough to keep track of, since you'll already need some sort of system to determine "Can X hit Y with melee"?

But no, totally removing them wouldn't break much of anything.

 

[Perram]

Well,

One thing to keep in mind is that AoO is also how Pathfinder/3e/3.5 handled the 'stickiness' of Melee characters. So you may want to think of how you're going to handle that.

It becomes a lot harder for the Fighter to protect the back ranks when there is no penalty for just moving around them.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

One thing to keep in mind is that AoO is also how Pathfinder/3e/3.5 handled the 'stickiness' of Melee characters. So you may want to think of how you're going to handle that.

If fighters are going to lose some utility then maybe a few changes to what they're allowed to do (such as full attack as a standard action so they can be more mobile) would help.

It becomes a lot harder for the Fighter to protect the back ranks when there is no penalty for just moving around them.

This also has the implication, however, that the mages, who traditionally are supposed to stand in the back, are now more vulnerable.

As d20 games such as Mutants & Masterminds have demonstrated, the game can run just fine without them.

Except games like M&M and True20, which remove AoOs, are also different in a number of other ways:. Just in terms of "magic vs. fighting":
* In M&M all effects are built with the same power system so "magic" is never inherently different from possible fighting moves. Also it puts caps on maximum effect levels and thus how much anyone has to save against.
* In True20 the magic isn't terribly powerful most of the time, and mages have less variety. Also they can exhaust themselves.
But that's just a cautionary note.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It would be nice to give non-casters some other simple ways of being disruptive, should you go down this path. Other than killing or knocking someone out, I mean.

Not so hard to implement.

 

[Mark Chance]

In my game (which discards AoO), I handle this two ways:

1. The ready action.
2. Action Points. For one Action Point, a character can make an immediate attack.

Immediate Attack: When a threatened foe takes any standard, move, or full round action, a character can spend one Action Point as an immediate action to make an immediate melee attack against that foe. He makes the immediate attack at his full normal attack bonus -- even if he's already attacked in the round. An immediate attack "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an immediate attack is taken, immediately resolve it. Then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the immediate attack was taken in the midst of another's turn). This Action Point use replaces normal attack of opportunity (AoO) rules.

 

[GlassEye]

In my game (which discards AoO), I handle this two ways:

1. The ready action.
2. Action Points. For one Action Point, a character can make an immediate attack.

Immediate Attack: When a threatened foe takes any standard, move, or full round action, a character can spend one Action Point as an immediate action to make an immediate melee attack against that foe. He makes the immediate attack at his full normal attack bonus -- even if he's already attacked in the round. An immediate attack "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an immediate attack is taken, immediately resolve it. Then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the immediate attack was taken in the midst of another's turn). This Action Point use replaces normal attack of opportunity (AoO) rules.

I like this. I'm curious, though, how many Actions Points do you give pc's and how frequently are they renewed? Do you find that the player's hold onto their action points for that 'perfect' situation to use them?

 

[Mark Chance]

I like this. I'm curious, though, how many Actions Points do you give pc's and how frequently are they renewed? Do you find that the player's hold onto their action points for that 'perfect' situation to use them?

I'm still playtesting those questions. I started every PC with 6 Action Points. So far, out of six players, I've had one use any number of Action Points throughout two game sessions that completed a short dungeon crawl. Not exactly a good sample.

My current proposal is one Action Point per adventure, plus bonus Action Points for meeting certain player-defined goals. The Action Point cap is 6, which excess Action Points converted to XP.

It's still a work in progress.