Anyone loveAoOs/OAs?

[IronWolf]

Do you love them all equally? For example, would you be ok with seeing some of the movement ones go away but keep say, digging in a pouch for a potion or firing a missile weapon provoking?

I think I am in the love them all equally boat or at least equal enough. There are several ways to get around various AoOs and I don't seem them slowing things down in games I've seen. I don't think one should be able to move about the battlefield without repercussions for certain types of movement or actions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you love them all equally? For example, would you be ok with seeing some of the movement ones go away but keep say, digging in a pouch for a potion or firing a missile weapon provoking?

If you're shifting your attention from the combatant who can reach you to someone else on the battlefield or to focus on a complex task, you should be at risk of taking a shot to your dome.

 

[Ahnehnois]

IMO removing the risk in doing something doesn't make it more cinematic. The risk is the very thing that make it cinematic. Remove AoOs and things will happen more, but they become pedestrian and hollow. Give me a threat and a risk any day.

Hallelujah! (XP is still off).

I like AoO's though the mechanics still need to be cleaned up. I think they're more along the lines of an advanced tactical option rule rather than part of the game's DNA, but I enjoy them in play. I hate having characters constantly moving and repositioning, and AoOs discourage that, and make it more interesting when it does happen.

 

[Randomthoughts]

So in a nutshell, anyone love AoOs or OAs and if so, why?

I like them but as optional rules.

 

[IronWolf]

I like them but as optional rules.

They are sort of optional now to a degree. Several GMs seem to have house ruled them right out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would ditch them, along with grid-based minis combat, in its entirety.

I've heard whispers that the "basic level" playtest D&D might be exactly that: a cinematic, minis-less system. And I am pumped.

I wouldn't say they're inappropriate for all games, but, generally speaking, I personally play D&D for the greater context of the adventure, and, while combats are an important part of my games, they are not significant enough to bother eating up time with double the rolls. There are other ways to make reach and polearms interesting, IMO.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1 of my players complains atleast once a month about Opp attacks in both 4e and 3e for atleast 10 years now. I have a problem with what I call the combat dance.

Example: If a player has a move of 8, and is with a straight line 3 away from who they want to attack, but they use all 8 sqs to avoid op atts I cringe everytime.

Now having said that everyone hated (even me and the player in quastion) when we removed them. We had everyone moveing around and no one was happy.

 

[Aldarc]

I would ditch them, along with grid-based minis combat, in its entirety.

I've heard whispers that the "basic level" playtest D&D might be exactly that: a cinematic, minis-less system. And I am pumped.

I wouldn't say they're inappropriate for all games, but, generally speaking, I personally play D&D for the greater context of the adventure, and, while combats are an important part of my games, they are not significant enough to bother eating up time with double the rolls. There are other ways to make reach and polearms interesting, IMO.

I agree with this. Just because a fighter has a reach or polearm should not mean they have the training to properly use it to make automatic AoO/OAs.

 

[Argyle King]

While I would not say I love them, I feel they are a part of the D&D structure I prefer having. (Unless the underlying structure and its ideals change.) What's the down side to just using a ranged attack at all times without them? ...to simply ignoring the front line of the enemy and going straight for the squishies in the back?


If AoOs were eliminated, I would prefer active defenses such as parry, dodge, and block being added.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

1 of my players complains atleast once a month about Opp attacks in both 4e and 3e for atleast 10 years now. I have a problem with what I call the combat dance.

Example: If a player has a move of 8, and is with a straight line 3 away from who they want to attack, but they use all 8 sqs to avoid op atts I cringe everytime.

Now having said that everyone hated (even me and the player in quastion) when we removed them. We had everyone moveing around and no one was happy.

I encountered a house-rule feat a few years ago called 'Suck It Up' - a character with armor and shield could bull through an AoO and take half damage from one attack per turn.

I could see an Improved version allowing something similar against multiple foes.

I do not remember source, but it may have been Netbook of Feats.

The Auld Grump