AOO's have to go, or be changed

[two]

No, I don't plan on buying any 4 stuff, but I am interested in it as a game, and to see if they will finally get rid of the inconsistent and stupid way that AOO's are handled currently.

AOO's are, in 3e, "active."

Meaning, if somebody does something that "breaks attention" or whatever flavor text you apply, they are punished by allowing the enemy to hit them with an AOO if (in enemy is in melee range, if they have not exceeded their AOO limit, etc.).

Note that this is active. A creature must DO something stupid in combat, like try to use a bow, or drink a potion, or stand up from prone, in oder to GENERATE an AOO.

The reason that this "active AOO" system is stupid is clear enough. There are times when being "passive" is much more dangerous than doing something "active" that generates an AOO.

The canonical example is a fighter in combat. He is paralyzed suddenly by an enemy wizard, and when his initiative comes around, he just stands there, paralyzed.

Let's say he is flanked by two enemies when this event happens (the paralysis).

Now, if this fighter were ACTIVE and drank a potion, the two enemies would get two AOO's. If he were ACTIVE and dropped to prone and then stood up again, ditto. If he shot his bow in combat, two AOO's.

Yes he is paralyzed, which is certainly much worse than shooting a bow, or standing up from prone, etc. yet he is not penalized at all, because it is PASSIVE. The player does not DO anything which generates an AOO, although his current condition (Paralyzed) should automatically allow an AOO - it's much worse to be paralyzed in combat than, say, distracted a few seconds by drinking a potion.

That is the "common sense" solution. Various conditions should allow for automatic AOO's (as if the person with the condition had done something active to generate an AOO).

Paralysis is one of them, sleep another, blindness another (it is far worse to be blind in combat than, say, stand up from prone, assuming no magic/feats to make the blindness less a hindrance).

Yet this creates a very difficult problem, because... well, being unconscious on the ground should also be a condition that generates an AOO. That's like standing up from prone, but worse, and easier to hit!

And this means that if you are in combat, and get hit, and drop unconscious to the ground... in theory, all enemies surrounding you should get a free AOO on you (on the PC's turn), assuming the PC does not get healed immediately.

This is real trouble, because it means that going down in combat is extremely dangerous. You could have a situation where the initiative is something like:

15 enemy1
14 pc1
13 enemy2
12 enemy3

If enemy1 drops pc1 to -5, then at initiative 14 enemy1 gets a free aoo, as does enemy2 and enemy3 if they are in range.

Meaning, the PC goes from unconscious to dead much of the time (because it does not use any action on the enemy's part, they will always choose to take this AOO).

So that's the problem. If you make AOO's somewhat realistic, it gets too dangerous when a PC is dropped negative (but not dead) in combat.

But if you don't expand AOO's to include "passive" AOO's, the AOO system is just a seriously stupid hack.

Being paralyzed is not penalized, but reloading your crossbow is?

You could further hack the hack by allowing passive AOO's but not when a PC drops unconscious, but that's a hack to partially fix the initial hack that is active AOO's.

I don't see any solution except the obvious ones.

1) Get rid of AOO's, or
2) make them consistent by allowing passive AOO's, including going negative in combat.

One fix which is a lot less of a hack would be free-action or immediate action healing by the cleric, allowing a downed PC to gain positive hit points right after going down, thus stopping any condition AOO's. Maybe that is the only real decent solution... have spells/classes that allow for this.

 

[HeinorNY]

it's much worse to be paralyzed in combat than, say, distracted a few seconds by drinking a potion.

Exactly, that's why you don't need to get a free attack against a paralysed opponent, you just make a coup de grace and kill him.

A paralysed character, or an unconscious character can be considered to be out of combat, the same way he doesn't defend himself from you, you also don't need to be defending yourself from him, you both are not "exchanging blows, dodges and parries" anymore, so none of you can really lower your guard and provoke an AoO.

Also, a paralysed opponent is like a door, and if you are in combat and need to break down a door for any reason, you don't get a AoO against it just because it's not fighting back or defending itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also, a paralysed opponent is like a door, and if you are in combat and need to break down a door for any reason, you don't get a AoO against it just because it's not fighting back or defending itself.

Well, I'll agree with the OP that it's odd.

Because if you're allowed AoO's against things that "drop their guard," you should, in theory, be allowed them when their guard is dropped FOR them (falling unconcious, going blind, etc), because WOW, do they leave themselves open then!

A coup de grace is a much more involved action than an AoO, so the analogy doesn't easily apply.

It's a nice point. The designer-level descision is basically "that's too many AoO's, and it double-penalizes someone who is already being penalized," but the logic should flow.

A point in favor of ditching or dramatically altering AoO's in my mind. I don't really want the wizard to be able to get away with casting a spell next to an enemy, but neither do I want the wizard to get an AoO when the enemy goes blind from his spell.

Interesting.

 

[Li Shenron]

A "free attack" against someone running away from combat makes sense in a game like OD&D where a round is a very abstract time frame of 1 minute during which you can imagine lots of things happen.

In 3e already doesn't make full sense, once combat is very precisely defined down to individual attacks. Note that however in 3.0 there were warnings or suggestions about not treating actions in combat as "exact". But then the designers wanted to take advantage of AoOs as rules devices that can be used to design new abilities around them, and at that point it all falls apart.

 

[HeinorNY]

An attack of opportunity is a "chance" attack. I don't like these rationalizations with an abstract combat system as D&D, but anyway: You are fighting an opponent, your weapons are constantly trying to get through each other's defense Your opponent lets his guard down for a moment and your weapon that was "halfway" from his body, constantly looking for a chance to hit him, just get the opportunity.

Think of a statue instead of a door.

You are not exchanging blows with the statue, so there is no reason for you to get an attack of "chance" against it. Instead of a free attempt to hit it, you get an auto-hit, or a coup the grace against a living thing.

From a pure metagame view, the one I care, if you boot AoO's, how the character is going to be penalyzed for drinking a potion in front of an attacking enemy?
If you change it like the OP proposed, you allow characters to get free attacks against anything around them that don't move.

 

[JDJblatherings]

From a pure metagame view, the one I care, if you boot AoO's, how the character is going to be penalyzed for drinking a potion in front of an attacking enemy?
.

Just have a rule saying...sorry can't normally do that (drink potion) in a threatened square.

Oh you insist? Make a concentration check. Fail it and can't drink the potion this round, fail it by 5 or more...drop the potion (ruining it).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Anything that currently provokes an AoO, instead you lose your Dex bonus until the start of your next action...?

The edge case I am most concerned about isn't casting spells or drinking potions, it is the oddity of Withdraw/Retreat caused by sequential initiative. There really does need to be some way to strike at someone who moves away from you, otherwise chases never end. A runs, B catches up, A runs, B catches up, etc.

 

[Grog]

Exactly, that's why you don't need to get a free attack against a paralysed opponent, you just make a coup de grace and kill him.

But you need to use a full-round action to do that, and you may want to do something else instead.

You don't have to use an action to attack someone drinking a potion, so why should you have to use one to attack someone who's paralyzed?

 

[am181d]

Yeah. This doesn't make much sense. "Dude with Club" can normally whack "Guy next to him" 10 times per minute with his club. But if "Guy next to him" is chugging a gallon of milk, Dude with Club can hit him 20 times per minute with his club. Because "Guy next to him" is chugging milk, "Dude with Club" is twice as fast.

The logical extension of AoOs is that everybody gets one free attack each round that they can use on anyone who isn't defending themself.

 

[Mercule]

Anything that currently provokes an AoO, instead you lose your Dex bonus until the start of your next action...?

I like it. You really probably shouldn't be doing that when there's a guy next to you who is really, really good at stabbing kidneys (rogue).

The edge case I am most concerned about isn't casting spells or drinking potions, it is the oddity of Withdraw/Retreat caused by sequential initiative. There really does need to be some way to strike at someone who moves away from you, otherwise chases never end. A runs, B catches up, A runs, B catches up, etc.

Another option would be to allow anyone next to someone hit by blindness, paralysis, etc. to get an AoO at the point the effect kicks in. One-time only. It would probably warrant a level boost to most of those effects, but it flows, logically.