Does this fairly eliminate Attacks of Opportunity?

[GMMichael]

I'm using a houserule system that allows three actions per round. Unlike normal D&D, defending takes an action, and saving throws take an action.
Full defense = three defense actions.
Fight defensively = one attack, two defenses.
Full attack = three attack actions.
Tactical withdrawal = one defense, two move actions.
If a character wants to use multiple actions, they must be used on his turn. Otherwise, he can save them to be used as single reactions later in the round.
Attack of opportunity = save an action, and attack when desired.
Trip the charging enemy = save an action, use as special movement reaction.

Also note that I'm using armor as damage reduction, so even if you don't defend, you still get to reduce damage. The first thing I'm noticing is that this system makes being outnumbered really bad, because you can only spend so much time defending yourself.

Thoughts? Concerns?

 

[Bagpuss]

Depends which system is this for 3.5 D&D? 4th Ed?

Full attack, you get three attacks? Are they all at your full attack bonus? Do you get your normal iterative attacks as well?

Is there no Fight Aggressively - Two attacks, one defense?

How hard are the enemies? The difference between three attacks to only one could be really significant if it means there is a decent chance that if you win initiative then the enemy won't even get to respond.

In defense if you haven't yet acted when do you decide what stance you are taking?

Seems this system will unfairly favour heavy armoured characters with big sword. As they can just do full attack all the time and leave their armour to soak the damage. Rogue like characters will suffer since they have to spend more time defending actively to avoid being hit.

Although saying that how often is Sneak Attack applied? Seems to me once a Rogue gets into flanking flanking then full attack could be over powered.

It seems to throw up a lot of balance problems to remove AoO (which is a pretty simple and effective mechanic) for what reason? What is it you don't like about AoO?

 

[GMMichael]

Depends which system is this for 3.5 D&D? 4th Ed?

3E architecture, but why can't it be universal?

Full attack, you get three attacks? Are they all at your full attack bonus? Do you get your normal iterative attacks as well?

Three attacks at full attack bonus. No other attacks. (Well...if you have a second weapon...)

Is there no Fight Aggressively - Two attacks, one defense?

Sure. The others were just examples.

How hard are the enemies? The difference between three attacks to only one could be really significant if it means there is a decent chance that if you win initiative then the enemy won't even get to respond.

Enemy range: same as 3E. In realizing this point, I figure that a PC could use his actions early in the first round, and the actions used would count against the standard 3 gained at the start of a PCs turn.

In defense if you haven't yet acted when do you decide what stance you are taking?
Seems this system will unfairly favour heavy armoured characters with big sword. As they can just do full attack all the time and leave their armour to soak the damage. Rogue like characters will suffer since they have to spend more time defending actively to avoid being hit.

As long as you stay in formation, and aren't surprised, you'll begin combat in your choice of offensive or defensive posture.
One balance, specifically for the rogue, is that he can take a feat that allows extra damage if his enemy doesn't try to defend the attack. Further, the heavily armored guy would need to use a defense action to utilize the benefits of his shield (but not his suit of armor).

Although saying that how often is Sneak Attack applied? Seems to me once a Rogue gets into flanking flanking then full attack could be over powered.

See above.

It seems to throw up a lot of balance problems to remove AoO (which is a pretty simple and effective mechanic) for what reason? What is it you don't like about AoO?

The #1 reason to dislike AoOs is that they require another table. I suspect that if AoOs become just another combat option, along with attacking, defending, moving behind cover, reloading, and everything else, then 1) you won't need a table for it, and 2) combat maneuvers (like Fight Aggressively) will flow organically from the same system that allows you to make an AoO anytime you want (as long as you have an action available).

 

[Bagpuss]

What do you mean by another table for it? You have completely confused me there.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm trying to eliminate this:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableStandardActions

In favor of this:
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/actions

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't see a huge amount of difference other than the first example has called out most of the common actions you might use and then explained how each of them work. The second one has just said, you can do an action, but no real explanation of what those actions are or how they work, so no wonder it is shorter.

For example the first one goes into detail about attack ranges, how you attack, the process of rolling attacks, of dealing damage. What happens if you attack at range into melee, critical hits, rules for unarmed attacks, of which AoO are a very small part.

Then for casting spells it goes into components, concentration, casting time, different types of attack spells, like touch, etc. And again AoO are a tiny part.

The second one doesn't even mention attacks or spell casting. To be a fair comparison you would need to add Casting spells, and where ever the actual combat rules are hidden to the same page, plus a load of other stuff.

The second example looks simpler but then it does really have any of the rules to carry out actions or many examples, once you start rooting around the wiki you start to realise that it is just as complex just more disjointed.

 

[Bagpuss]

In that system I would have thought the easiest way to get rid of AoO is to say something like....

If someone moves out of melee combat with an opponent(s) who has a melee weapon in hand, the opponent(s) get a free attack action against them, as if they had Reserved and action.

Your Attack of Opportunity in your first example isn't really, it's more Overwatch. If you were in melee with an opponent there would be no reason to take it, unless they were a spellcaster and you could allow it to interrupt magic or something? Why wait to attack an opponent it doesn't prevent them moving or give them a penalty for it, which is the point of the AoO mechanic, to make melee "sticky". The only time it seems worth using is with ranged attacks and you hope the target moves out of cover or to closer range.

 

[Meatboy]

It could work. The problem I see with all actions using the same resource is that, as a player at least, it would favor novaing to keep your opponent on the defensive. I would try everything to make sure I went first when combat started and then just pile on attacks and damage forcing the enemy to use up actions defending, or die, then having used their actions they can't attack back.

 

[Dethklok]

Ultimately, I think this system is more "systemy" than "simulationist." It may be fun, but it doesn't look like an accurate portrayal of skirmishes to me. Do you have any experience sparring with melee weapons, DMMike?

What do you mean by another table for it? You have completely confused me there.

That's what I was thinking. You don't need a table to express the rules there; you can just say, "Taking any action that requires you stop paying attention to an enemy's attacks will provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy." Then you can add, for clarity, that "Some common examples are: Casting a spell or spell-like ability, using a missile weapon, bandaging an ally's wounds, lighting a lantern or torch, drinking a potion, or bull-rushing an enemy." I think that giant table , with entries like "maybe" and "usually," is as awkward as it is unhelpful.

 

[nnms]

I'm trying to eliminate this:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableStandardActions

In favor of this:
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/actions

I think it'll do that.

Action points that you can spend during your turn or not during your turn are not a new thing, so I think it's a tried and tested approach that should work well.

It also opens up things for missile weapons that are not quickly reloaded. Aim-Aim-Fire for a crossbow, for example. While chucking shuriken or throwing knives might be throw-pull one out-throw. A bow, might be load-aim-fire with the ability to shoot more quickly by getting rid of the aim action be covered by a feat or talent (aiming for free when you fire because you're fast and good).

Ultimately, I think this system is more "systemy" than "simulationist." It may be fun, but it doesn't look like an accurate portrayal of skirmishes to me. Do you have any experience sparring with melee weapons, DMMike?

I couldn't find anywhere he said he was going for simulation as a design goal. It looks like he's going for some resource management as a source of fun in using the system, but that's a guess as well.

EDIT: Had another idea from the wargame Malifaux. In that game, you can be a "melee expert" or "casting expert" or "shooting expert" and get another action each turn that can only be spent on your area of expertise. So a melee expert (whether they get their from leveling up or a feat or something) could do 3 defense actions and still attack once. An amazing dragon that's a melee expert and casting expert would have five actions, one of which is a melee attack (if in range) and one of which is to manifest draconic magic (if appropriate).

Combat reflexes in Pathfinder (not that this has to be for a 3.x game) lets you make additional attacks of opportunity each round equal to your dex modifier. Instead, it would give you an additional melee attack you can only use outside your normal turn. If it gave dex modifier in attacks, then you'd amp up your dex, move up to your target, end your turn and do 4+ attacks. Probably not a good way to go.