AoO Clarification

[Cedric]

Hello...

The group that I am currently playing with does AoO's differently then I do.

As you move up to a monster or npc, one with a normal 5' reach, they have you suffer an AoO.

Note, I'm not talking about moving past them or around them...I'm talking about moving up to them.

Because your approach to any npc causes an AoO, they've all taken Spring Attack (except for the wizard).

I just wanted to find a good explanation of AoO's, somewhere official, so I can show them the error of their ways.

Cedric

 

[Thanee]

PHB 2nd Printing has the AoO examples in them.

It should suffice to read the rules in the PHB, tho, since they CLEARLY state, that you suffer AoO's for LEAVING not for ENTERING threatened squares!

"If you move within or out of a threatened area..." not "If you move into or out of a threatened area..."

Bye
Thanee

 

[CRGreathouse]

As you move up to a monster or npc, one with a normal 5' reach, they have you suffer an AoO.

I'm a little incredulous - do people ever use melee attacks at all in the game? It's bad enough now that people give up multple attacks when moving, but getting an AoO too? Ouch.

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Re: AoO Clarification

I'm a little incredulous - do people ever use melee attacks at all in the game? It's bad enough now that people give up multple attacks when moving, but getting an AoO too? Ouch.

Actually it would simply make rushing forward to fight a bad thing. people would approach cautiously, slowly, with more rounds of missile fire, and then both sides would position for a 5' move to approach and swing.

Charges become less appealing.

other than that, no great shakes.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Re: AoO Clarification

Actually it would simply make rushing forward to fight a bad thing. people would approach cautiously, slowly, with more rounds of missile fire, and then both sides would position for a 5' move to approach and swing.

Charges become less appealing.

I disagree - one side would naturally be better at missile fire than the other, and would thus back off each round (full attack, then 5' step back).

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: AoO Clarification

I disagree - one side would naturally be better at missile fire than the other, and would thus back off each round (full attack, then 5' step back).

OK for the rocket scientists out there...

if the enemy is superior at missile weapons, and are using them then backing 5'...

then you rush them, maybe even charge, because... armed with missile weapons they do not threaten and thus do not give you AoOs.

The notion of giving attacks of op when armed with MELEE weapons and when approached within 5' does not make the ability to control range with superior missile weapon fire any easier.

 

[dcollins]

I just wanted to find a good explanation of AoO's, somewhere official, so I can show them the error of their ways.

The newest printing Player's Handbook Bonus Inserts are also online at WOTC, here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Bonus.asp

I recommend you download them, print them out, and show the pictorial examples of AOOs to your playgroup.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AoO Clarification

OK for the rocket scientists out there...

if the enemy is superior at missile weapons, and are using them then backing 5'...

then you rush them, maybe even charge, because... armed with missile weapons they do not threaten and thus do not give you AoOs.

The notion of giving attacks of op when armed with MELEE weapons and when approached within 5' does not make the ability to control range with superior missile weapon fire any easier.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'll bite.

This is quite valid for 1-on-1 combat, but I'd assume that there would be frontliners (usually with reach weapons) protecting the archers. Alternatively, they could be too far apart for a single charge - but there should still be pikemen there, just in case.

Longspears: don't leave home without them!

 

[telepox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AoO Clarification

Longspears: don't leave home without them!

Keep your distance though

Anyway, to the original poster, an AoO in that case is completely against the rules, for the most part. The game mechanics work well, as long as you can reason them out. Unfortunately, expanations for the rules are sometimes lacking.

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AoO Clarification

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'll bite.

This is quite valid for 1-on-1 combat, but I'd assume that there would be frontliners (usually with reach weapons) protecting the archers. Alternatively, they could be too far apart for a single charge - but there should still be pikemen there, just in case.

Longspears: don't leave home without them!

OK so bnow we have a force oppsoing you which outguns you in ranged combat as well as having a front line force capable as well.

Uhh ... when faced with a force over twice as strong as you are, RUNNING, to the rear, is a pretty good option. While RUNNING you gain an AC bonus vs ranged attack.

Now if we do not assume such overwhelming odds against you, then we might even have a fight to discuss.

Either way, when faced with these odds, the AoO rule is irrelevent.