Problems with removing attacks of opportunity?

[Doc Eldritch]

As far as action point type mechanics go, I have found that if they are a resource to be saved up, players hoard them, even when they might be better of using them.

However, when they are something that does not save up (ie you get X many Action Points each session, full amount at the start of a new session. Or day. Or whatever), players then tend to use them, as there is no fear of "running out". Some will still save them up for later in a session, but in general, most players are much more liberal about making use of them if they don't worry about them as a finite resource.

 

[ffanxii4ever]

personally, I love the MnM rules for regarding hero points and that is how I do action points in my 4e game.
And I also give action points a little more versatility so that it is more encouraging to try something risky or cool. Nothing sucks more than blowing an action point to get a 2nd attack because your first one missed,...

and then missing again (which is why if you roll a 10 or less, add ten to the result)

 

[GlassEye]

Thanks for the comments about action points. My apologies, Sir Robilar, for side-tracking your thread.

 

[cattoy]

If a game lacked AOO, everything with a brain would just rush the casters and cut them to pieces. No wizard would ever survive to 2nd level.

Why would an intelligent foe ever attack anyone with a high AC when there were low AC targets with good DPR on the field?

 

[Mark Chance]

If a game lacked AOO, everything with a brain would just rush the casters and cut them to pieces. No wizard would ever survive to 2nd level.

Not IME. If there are no AoO, that wizard can cast whatever spells he wants while threatened as well, the wizard can move away without penalty, others can move to help him without penalty, et cetera.

 

[cattoy]

Not IME. If there are no AoO, that wizard can cast whatever spells he wants while threatened as well, the wizard can move away without penalty, others can move to help him without penalty, et cetera.

Hard to cast spells whilst bleeding out.

 

[cattoy]

Here's the point.

It only makes sense that PCs and monsters both act as if they were aware of the logical consequences of the rules as enforced. If AOO is in the game, then it makes sense for monsters to act accordingly and not recklessly rush past the front line fighters in a mad dash for the casters/healers.

If there are no AOO in the game, then there is no logical reason to engage the frontline fighters until they are the last things standing. They have higher AC, more HP and put up more of a fight than the squishy casters in the back with no armor, low HP, no weapons.

The sensible approach for a fight of a bunch of orcs vs a typical adventuring party in a game with no AOO:

Orc1 charges the caster/shoots at the caster.
Orc2 charges the caster/shoots at the caster.
Orc3 charges the caster/shoots at the caster.
etc.
Once the caster falls, replace caster with healer and continue.

Once the healer falls, replace healer with rogue.

If any high priority target gets up again, put him down again.

Kill the fighter last.

Lack of AOO lets the Orcs target whatever they want, whenever they want. The Orcs are more or less homogeneous, making the PCs ability to target whatever they want more or less irrelevant.

1st level wizards/sorcerers will die in droves.

 

[Mark Chance]

Lack of AOO lets the Orcs target whatever they want, whenever they want. ....

1st level wizards/sorcerers will die in droves.

Orcs can already target whatever they want, and, again, IME, you're wrong. I'm running a game without AoO. Your scenario isn't panning out. You're fundamental error is to the orcs change their tactics without bothering to look at the rest of the picture, namely how the players' tactics change.

 

[Sir Robilar]

Thanks a lot for everyone´s feedback!

I´m not keen on introducing an action point mechanic right now. Probably I´ll just do away with AoO´s and see how it works and if the player´s complain.

 

[tomBitonti]

If you allow attacks out of order (as a committed action), then a lot of the reason for AOO's dissapears.

AOO's are an artifact of cyclic (non-simultaneous) initiative.

If you spend time next to me attacking me, then move away, and I cannot follow you, I lose a response to your attack. Since I spent that first action receiving your attack, should I not also have a time window to attack you?

If you allow a player to attack out of order, but force them to spend that action on their turn, then you avoid the issue.

Players have to pay more attention, and you get interupt type issues to deal with. On the plus side, you avoid the error of abstraction that AOO's fill in.

Thx!

TomB