AoO: How are they so confusing?!

[Michael Silverbane]

But this is no different in remembering how far your obscure spell from Complete Adventurer can go, what those 6 maneuvers allow you to do with those 2 Tactical feats you took, and remembering if the DC for your psionic power rose up by 1 for every 2 or 4 power points? All these require you to look it up or look on your character sheet if you have it printed out.

I believe a printed copy of the AoO rules and the table in the PHB would help PCs out a lot.

Some folks do not remember those things. Some folks do not want to look those things up during the game. Some folks do not wish to allow additional sources beyond the Core for just those reasons...

At the same time... players are more invested in character options that they have specifically chosen for their characters, and thus have an easier time remembering them.

Later
silver

 

[Ry]

If I wrote a game I would replace terms like Attacks of Opportunity with something that _sounds_ simpler.

I used "Provoke" and "Retaliate", although a character doesn't get them as automatically as in D&D.

 

[blargney the second]

The big realization for me was that AoOs actually have the potential to speed up combat. More hits = unconscious/dead faster.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, used AOO's to my advantage just today. My binder took Naberius, which allows me to use Command every 5 rounds. I Commanded a baddy to "Approach" past the rest of the party and he failed his saving throw. One AOO from the Warforged later and baddy was dead.

A very sweet one/two combo.

 

[Shadeydm]

My personal dislike of AoOs has nothing to do with it being too confusing. To me they add an unneeded layer of complexity of combat. Do I use them yes, do I like them or feel that the game is better with them NO.

 

[TerraDave]

Having used them since 2ed (Combat and Tactics) I would say they can confuse do to:

-the moving through a threatened area thing, as noted above
-some inconsistency in application (e.g. wand use)
-there connection to other complicated things, like grapling, which seems to rub off on them

But ya, they are not that bad. And it raises the question: what are the alternatives? Past editions have almost always had equivelent rules, which could be less consistent and more confusing, if you bothered to use them.

 

[robberbaron]

IMO the perceived problems (previously discussed at some length in a variety of threads) generally boil down to two things:

1. The definition of Moving.
2. Players who don't take 5' steps then get all "Why did that guy hit me? I only [insert AoO-provoking action here]! That's a crap rule!", or some such.

I agree that AoO rules are sometimes ambiguous and counter-intuitive but they are not generally difficult to either understand or avoid.
It is one area of the game that we have not house-ruled so it can't be all bad.

 

[hexgrid]

There's also the problem with some players having an irrational fear of attacks of opportunity, and refusing to take any action that might trigger one.

I can't explain it, but I've seen it in action more than once.

 

[Lockridge]

Razz,
I'm betting that you are an experienced player who knows the rules fairly well. As a DM I also know the rules well. But for beginning players and for casual players, AOO add complexity that they have no time or desire to understand.

My wife plays D&D and has been for three years but she still rolls her eyes at AOO. I could say, "suck it up and read the book" but that just doesn't work in human terms. I'm not going to kick her out of the game just because I have to walk her through it each time.

Here's the game designer-type answer to why AOO are difficult for some players to grasp.

1. AOO are not intuitive. Sure, I've been playing 3E since it came out and understand it well enough but for most players in any game, you want the rules to be intuitive.

2. Anything that requires memorization of a list will doom the game for casual gamers. Even if you and I think the list is simple enough, the average casual gamer will always have to look some things up and that gets annoying.

3. D&D combat is not meant to be an exact simulation of actual combat. It is meant to be only a representation. Thats why designers tell us that a round consisting of 6 seconds is made up of several moves feints and parries that are all summarized in 1 d20 roll. AOO contradicts this by moving from a "macro" ruleset to a "micro" ruleset. When you think of D&D combat rules, you have to admit, that AOO is a very different sort of rule. It sticks out as "something extra to worry about".

Ultimately it comes down to the willingness of players to put forth effort into learning this rule. If I were to kick out every player who doesn't fully understand AOO, I'd be left with me DM'ing with only two players. The other three players really don't care to understand it. Same goes for grappling rules for that matter. Players will often steer clear of grappling for fear of having to pick up the rulebook.

If you want an exact tactical combat system, try another RPG. D&D does this weird thing of trying to combine a simplified combat system with an exacting rule. This is ultimately a design flaw. Its not wrong per se, but the reason that it is a design flaw is that it will not be fully understood by all players.

Further proof: I've played chess casually and very often when I use the impasse rule people get confused and think I've played wrong. Experienced chess players know it but casual players often don't because it is one layer of complexity away from the rest of the ruleset. (In case I've spelt it wrong, impasse is the rule that allows a pawn to move forward one space and still take an opponent's piece that is diagonally away from it).

Hope that helps.

 

[Imaro]

One of my biggest beefs with AoO is this setup...

Combatant A and Combatant B are in melee combat...Combatant C runs past both and B takes an AoO when C leaves the threatened area. Now if B is diverting his attention to actively attack C as he runs past...then why doesn't combatant A get an AoO or bonus to hit, or something since B is diverting his attention. In a sword fight this lapse of attention on an opponent (assumedly for 6 seconds) could mean the difference between life and death.) I've thought about this, and have even had players bring it up, and I haven't come up with a reason yet.