AoO: How are they so confusing?!

[el-remmen]

As I always remind a player when his character's movement would draw an attack of opportunity, it doesn't really matter to me whether anyone else finds them confusing. As long as I understand them and the players accept that that is the case (which it is) then their understanding does not matter.

 

[kenobi65]

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.

Yup...some players just don't want to be hit, period.

When I see that the monster isn't doing a lot of damage when it hits (or is having a hard time hitting, to begin with), I might do something to provoke, just because I'm not worried about losing a few HP if I've got a lot to start with.

 

[GreatLemur]

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.

Seems a little unfair not to warn players when they go declaring actions that are gonna provoke. It's not like it's secret, game-spoiling, DM-only information; it's just a reminder about how the rules work, and a clarification of the PC's combat situation.

I'm just about to run a game for a bunch of newbs--that is, folks who've largely been playing World of Darkness and Amber for years, but haven't played D&D since 2nd Ed., if at all--and I'm expecting to end up saying "Are you sure you want to do that?" a whole lot.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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).

Do you mean en passant? This allows a pawn to be captured by another if it moves forward two spaces but it could have been captured normally had it only moved forwards by one square.

There's no rule which allows a pawn to move forwards one square and capture so the people who think you've played wrong are correct.

 

[Psion]

I could understand why people might have had some issues with it under 3.0, since the explanation wasn't great and they hadn't distinguished a non-run full round move action as being a "withdraw".

But really, in 3.5, I don't see the difficulty. To me, most situations that would expose you to an AoO are pretty clear, and the list of cases that aren't apparent is short enough that it's not hard to commit to memory.

 

[Lockridge]

Do you mean en passant? This allows a pawn to be captured by another if it moves forward two spaces but it could have been captured normally had it only moved forwards by one square.

There's no rule which allows a pawn to move forwards one square and capture so the people who think you've played wrong are correct.

You're right about the rule. I was playing it right but just didn't feel like looking it up for the purpose of the post. Thanks for the correct name though. To be honest its been years since I've played chess so my memory is a little fuzzy.

 

[GreatLemur]

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.

Yeah, and the whole phenomenon of AoOs giving characters more attacks per round based on what other characters do is very weird to me. I know it's supposed to represent more "openings" in the fight being available when people drop their guard, but that's a level of abstraction that kinda bugs me.

 

[jdrakeh]

- Internalizing the list of what does and doesn't provoke (and, for some people, it's *not* intuitive or simple...reading a scroll provokes, but using a wand doesn't, for example).

This is the one that I see crop up most often. Really, any set of criteria that requires codification in a detailed and near-exhaustive list isn't intuitive by its very nature (if it were, there wouldn't be a need for a codified list). And that's the problem. keeping track of this upon all of the other unintuitive big lists in D&D can be a headache. I'm not sure how I'll manage without my laptop, now that it's dead.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This is the one that I see crop up most often. Really, any set of criteria that requires codification in a detailed and near-exhaustive list isn't intuitive by its very nature (if it were, there wouldn't be a need for a codified list). And that's the problem. keeping track of this upon all of the other unintuitive big lists in D&D can be a headache. I'm not sure how I'll manage without my laptop, now that it's dead.

Is it really that bad?

One of my players... well lets just say remembering AoO inducing actions is not her thing. She has a simple method of avoiding such memorising. She just makes sure her character is not inside a threatened square and if her character is, she just gets her character to move 5 ft. back before she does anything that might take a little concentration. Such an approach has worked for her without issue so far.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[jdrakeh]

Is it really that bad?

By itself, no. Coupled with the hundreds of other codified lists of target DCs for actions, combat conditions, creature types, etc and the fiddly rules for how all of these things interact with one another yes, it can be. It's why software developers made a bundle of money on campaign management software (e.g., enough people found it necessary).