Attacks of Opportunity

[Mark CMG]

Still curious why an AoO comes at no cost. Seems like something should be given up to take the attack. The advantage of it is, of course, getting to attack out of turn when something presents itself, a reward unto itself, but why should it be an *additional* attack/action? If someone has the time to spend on an AoO when circumstances exist, why not spend the time on some other action when those circumstances do not exist? As said above, I would require giving up a later attack if taking advantage of the situation to get the earlier attack, and if someone has already taken their action they simply don't have the ability to take advantage of an AoO situation. But regardless of this particular solution appealing to you, how does any other solution (even the official one) justify the time factor?

 

[Belphanior]

Still curious why an AoO comes at no cost. Seems like something should be given up to take the attack. The advantage of it is, of course, getting to attack out of turn when something presents itself, a reward unto itself, but why should it be an *additional* attack/action? If someone has the time to spend on an AoO when circumstances exist, why not spend the time on some other action when those circumstances do not exist? As said above, I would require giving up a later attack if taking advantage of the situation to get the earlier attack, and if someone has already taken their action they simply don't have the ability to take advantage of an AoO situation. But regardless of this particular solution appealing to you, how does any other solution (even the official one) justify the time factor?

One attack roll doesn't normally represent one attack, as such. Combat is supposed to involve feinting, creating openings, probing attacks, and so on. An attack roll is just a single event due to the abstract nature of the system. You're not attacking once every six seconds - you're actually attacking all the time, even at people you didn't target last round.

An AoO then represents a moment where the target's guard is low. The feints and half-hearted jabs that normally wouldn't hit now stand a real chance of connecting. It's not about time, it's about the readiness of the target to defend himself.

 

[GSHamster]

Still curious why an AoO comes at no cost

Because the AoO is itself a cost. It's the cost for the other guy to take a specific action.

I want to cast a spell in melee. Cost/Drawback is that the person attacking me gets a free attack and can interrupt me. If that person had an extra cost, the decision tree gets much larger, for not much effect.

 

[Mark CMG]

One attack roll doesn't normally represent one attack, as such. Combat is supposed to involve feinting, creating openings, probing attacks, and so on. An attack roll is just a single event due to the abstract nature of the system. You're not attacking once every six seconds - you're actually attacking all the time, even at people you didn't target last round.

An AoO then represents a moment where the target's guard is low. The feints and half-hearted jabs that normally wouldn't hit now stand a real chance of connecting. It's not about time, it's about the readiness of the target to defend himself.

Sure, then to put it in those terms, why not do some other action abstractly in place of an AoO if those circumstances don't exist? At some point, it comes down to how much can be done in a given round, whether it is measured as time or otherwise.

Because the AoO is itself a cost. It's the cost for the other guy to take a specific action.

I want to cast a spell in melee. Cost/Drawback is that the person attacking me gets a free attack and can interrupt me. If that person had an extra cost, the decision tree gets much larger, for not much effect.

And yet it is an advantage given to the person attempting the AoO with no cost to that person.

 

[GSHamster]

And yet it is an advantage given to the person attempting the AoO with no cost to that person.

Right, because the attacker cannot control whether an AoO happens. That's entirely under the control of the defender.

From a purely game perspective, triggered actions (with rare uncontrollable triggers) rarely have a cost. Any significant cost combines with the rarity of the trigger to make the action prohibitive and unlikely to be used.

If you really want a cost associated with AoOs, I'd suggest bundling the ability to make AoOs into a feat.

Opportunist
If an enemy next to you attempts to move or cast a spell, you may make a free melee attack against them. Only one attack per enemy per round may be made.

This way, there's a cost to making AoOs, the cost of taking this feat. Not all creatures have AoOs, only special ones. It's removed from the default combat. If you want to ban AoOs entirely, you can remove this feat.

 

[Mark CMG]

Right, because the attacker cannot control whether an AoO happens. That's entirely under the control of the defender.

From a purely game perspective, triggered actions (with rare uncontrollable triggers) rarely have a cost. Any significant cost combines with the rarity of the trigger to make the action prohibitive and unlikely to be used.

If you really want a cost associated with AoOs, I'd suggest bundling the ability to make AoOs into a feat.

Opportunist
If an enemy next to you attempts to move or cast a spell, you may make a free melee attack against them. Only one attack per enemy per round may be made.

This way, there's a cost to making AoOs, the cost of taking this feat. Not all creatures have AoOs, only special ones. It's removed from the default combat. If you want to ban AoOs entirely, you can remove this feat.

I see what you're saying but that becomes more (or alternate) rules rather than less, less rules being admittedly one of my goals. I like the concept of AoOs, and want something like them in the game, but would prefer they become a choice, in the moment, and for a fair cost (give up your later attack for the chance to attack before the advancing enemy gets their swing in, for example). It's fairly simple, would come up in relatively few circumstances, requires a tactical decision to be made by both opponents, and has an inherent balance built into it.

 

[was]

Always thought they created more problems than they fixed. My vote is for dumping them.

 

[Bobbum Man]

My vote is to keep them, but change how they work.

I say let each character make an Attack of Opportunity only once per encounter, but give them scaling bonuses or other benefits.

As for guardian type characters like the 4E defender, simply have them grant a scaling penalty to attacks against adjacent allies.

 

[the Jester]

Ditch 'em- except give fighters a way to make them. Feats, powers, stances, whatever- a fighter should have a way to whack a guy who walks away from him.

 

[Traken]

My ideal solution would be to get rid of the "one attack represents multiple attempts to attack" idea. One attack roll equals one attack. Reduce the round time. Limit the number of actions you can take on a turn. Reduce the distance a person can move in one round.

By doing these, you get rid of the necessity that is the AoO. However, even if they don't do this, they should still get rid of the generic AoO.