Would it be okay to trash AoO?

[hong]

What you can do is simply disallow any action that would provoke an AoO. That's really their function; they're not meant to kill you, just punish you for doing silly things like casting spells in melee. This will change things somewhat (eg make the Combat Reflexes feat useless), but it wouldn't break the game.

The downside is that you'll still have to go to the rulebooks to figure out what would provoke AoOs. But that's not really that hard. As said, the rule basically is that if you do anything silly, people get a free swing at you. And if you've got your head around that concept, well, there wouldn't be any problem with AoOs anymore....

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

While I agree 100% with the above statement... and I am a HUGE advocate of tayloring house rules to further the enjoyment of the game... I have to add a word of caution.

Be consistent! In the above examples by Thorvald, he just created 3 new rules that... if they are used once... they need to be used every time in the same instance ...

And I agree with this 100%

Once you find a ruling that works, and everyone agrees on, it should graduate to the status of predictable 'rule'.

_______________________________

As to multiple arbitrary rules being a 'bad, bad, bad idea'...

It's much easier having "one rule to rule them all" (i.e. AoO) than it is having multiple rules--but only if you understand the one rule (though there is something to say for the variety/color introduced by treating differing circumstances differently).

If you base the alternatives on what makes sense to you, then there really isn't a problem with remembering them, and they won't seem arbitrary (also see my point above about consistency)--though, of course, this would not necessarily remain true for those outside your group if they were to view your rules.

Anyway, half my enjoyment as DM comes from making these types of rulings on the fly--with an eye towards having things progress in a dramatically appropriate manner

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

But i still dont know what "trolling" means!

Ever hear the term, "troll the river"? On a message board, trolling means your looking to start an arguement or (at the very least) a "heated debate".

Typically, some topics which have brought such debates previously (and repeatedly) become known as "Troll Topics".

A few hints:

Don't compare Role-Playing to Roll-Playing.

Don't proclaim Power-Gaming or In-Depth Gaming above the other.

Don't call Sneak Attack overpowered unless you have a truly sensible replacement.

Don't call 3E a Power-Gamer's wet dream.

Don't call 2E a Power-Gamer's wet dream (especially on a board where 2E Gamers post).

Attack-of-Opportunity sucks.

Each of these statements have adherents of the opposite, and will often begin a lengthy debate, most of which degenerate into flame fests (Flame=Posts of Fire meant to burn the Troll).

That help any?

Consequently, this board is often friendly about things. Some boards out there (which I won't name outside of a private e-mail) aren't so good about containing such issues.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As an interesting alternative, you might like to check out the SNAP combat rules developed by Riemer Behrends - it is a way of handling D&D Combat without the bookkeeping of initiative or AoO. It is a 4-page PDF

You can find it at http://www.cse.msu.edu/~behrends/rpg/snap.pdf (approx 72k)

Definitely worth a look - his aim is to encourage/enable narrative combat rather than the more wargame-style of 3e.

 

[fimp]

Ever hear the term, "troll the river"? On a message board, trolling means your looking to start an arguement or (at the very least) a "heated debate".

Typically, some topics which have brought such debates previously (and repeatedly) become known as "Troll Topics".

A few hints:

Don't compare Role-Playing to Roll-Playing.

Don't proclaim Power-Gaming or In-Depth Gaming above the other.

Don't call Sneak Attack overpowered unless you have a truly sensible replacement.

Don't call 3E a Power-Gamer's wet dream.

Don't call 2E a Power-Gamer's wet dream (especially on a board where 2E Gamers post).

Attack-of-Opportunity sucks.

Each of these statements have adherents of the opposite, and will often begin a lengthy debate, most of which degenerate into flame fests (Flame=Posts of Fire meant to burn the Troll).

That help any?

Consequently, this board is often friendly about things. Some boards out there (which I won't name outside of a private e-mail) aren't so good about containing such issues.

Okay, i get it!

BTW, i think sneak attack is overpowered!

 

[Conaill]

I have to agree that AoO's are hoplessly clunky and complicated, and probably one of the first things that should be changed if and when there will ever be a 4th edition.

[Disclaimer: Personally, I don't have any problem using them. But it is one of the few pieces of the core rules that new players are almost guaranteed to trip over.]

Here's an idea: If we get rid of movement-related AoO's, that seriously hampers the ability to interrupt opponent actions. So why not make the Ready action more general? If you only had to specify the trigger for Ready, but *not* the readied action itself, readied actions could substitute for a lot of the movement-related AoO's.

For example: ogres protecting a mage... all three ogres ready a partial action, triggered when someone comes within their reach.

Perhaps Combat Reflexes could then allow you to ready two partial actions (provided you take no more than a free action or 5' step before the Ready).

How does that sound?


Edit: We should probably also allow Ready to be turned into Delay at will. If it looks like the trigger will never happen, you can choose to take your partial action anytime during the initiative order (but you won't be able to interrupt others actions).

 

[Wikidogre]

I really dont see how AoO are too complicated, if you provok, than your enemy gets a free action to attack you at full modifiers.


as for movement AoO, i realize that Fimp might understand, but i just need to throw this in, because for the longest time my pc's did not understand why you provoked an AoO for movement in combat.

picture you have a sword, and you are fighting, the jerk who lives next door to you for breeding grounds, when you suddenly look up and see your other neighbor, moving in on your spring chicken! so you go to move past your current enemy, to smack down on this new threat to your man-hood. But for enemy #1 well crap he is flamed that you attacked him so he gets his AoO and wallops you in the head with his club.......hense a movement AoO, because you moved dropping your guard and attention to him allowing a free chance to smite you.

the end.

happy gaming

 

[Conaill]

dropping your guard and attention to him allowing a free chance to smite you.

So if your opponent is subject of a Hold Person spell, should you get an AoO on him? And why should a Ftr1 with Combat Reflexes be able to make as many attacks using AoO's as a Ftr20 with a Full Attack? And why should one be able to Cleave a 3rd party on an AoO? And what happens if your opponent makes a Move away from you, is subject of a readied action from a 3rd party, and then decides not to continue his Move but counterattack instead?

Yes, I know the rules, and I know how one can rationalize all these various seemingly illogic aspects of AoO's But fact is... these are just that: rationalizations. It would have been far better for the game if they had managed to come up with a much more streamlined, clear-cut mechanism.

 

[Lily Inverse]

So if your opponent is subject of a Hold Person spell, should you get an AoO on him? And why should a Ftr1 with Combat Reflexes be able to make as many attacks using AoO's as a Ftr20 with a Full Attack? And why should one be able to Cleave a 3rd party on an AoO?

This isn't exactly illogical, as he's devoted all his training to this point to making the most of his opponent's mistakes. NOW imagine a 20th level fighter-base character who, in addition to these traits, has taken Great Cleave and Supreme Cleave, with a Mighty Cleaving weapon. The guy is literally able to take down DOZENS of goblins in a single round. Which, if you think about the other things 20th level characters are capable of, isn't that illogical.

 

[Conaill]

That's besides the point. If a Ftr1 can make 5 attacks in a single round (one regular, 4 AoO) by "making the most of his opponent's mistakes", don't you think he should be able, for example, to make 5 attacks against someone who is Held?

Again, AoO's require you to make way to many rationalizations. They detract from the believability of combat. Yes, they do make combat more strategic and therefore (to me at least) more interesting. But I think a more clear-cut mechanism could have been used to achieve the same effect.