AOO's have to go, or be changed

[Plane Sailing]

One thing that was mentioned in this thread a few times sounds like a viable alternative...have all those actions that "leave your character open" simply leave him flatfooted for that round, unless he does some "casting on the defensive" or equivalent check to avoid that.

First time I saw this approach in print was in Spycraft 2.0

 

[xechnao]

House Rule:

-10 penalty to Dex or Str modifier to the one making the AoO till his round starts (he chooses the type of penalty he will suffer).
This in combat usually gives an advantage regarding AoO to finesse instead of brawn guys which IMO is logical.
Optional rule: one may make a concentration test to halve the penalty.
Oh, I forgot...being Helpless,yes, provokes AsoO.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Imagine a fighter who is in melee with an opponent and suddenly turns to the side to swipe at another opponent, who is not really in melee with him, but just did something that threatened an AoO (like drink a potion). Said fighter can do that AoO on the spur of a moment, completely outside his normal attack rhythm, and NOT open himself up to his own opponent? Sounds a tad weird to me, to be honest.

What I found scary about this example is there is a competant fighter who allowed an enemy to walk up beside him without doing anything.

In your mind you seem to view the fighter as being in a single combat with one foe and a spectator being nearby. In my mind I view the fighter as being in combat with 2 people but who is concentrating on hurting one of them. He flails at the second opponent, taking swipes with his shield, carrying his blows on, exagerating the back swing so his second opponent is always forced into movement. When the second opponent does something complex he stops concentrating on dodging and it is one of these attacks that although not intended to cause damage does in fact connect and hurt.

This is why paralized people don't suffer AoO - as soon as they stop moving people in combat no longer consider them a threat and so don't flail at them and so there are no random attacks the paralized character can accidentally get in the way of.

In my mind the rule reason for having paralized people not suffer AoOs is obvious (double penalities) and I can easily see a 'real world' reason for the rule being there.

I'm interested to see how 4th ed has simplified the list of things that cause AoOs.

 

[xechnao]

What I found scary about this example is there is a competant fighter who allowed an enemy to walk up beside him without doing anything.

In your mind you seem to view the fighter as being in a single combat with one foe and a spectator being nearby. In my mind I view the fighter as being in combat with 2 people but who is concentrating on hurting one of them. He flails at the second opponent, taking swipes with his shield, carrying his blows on, exagerating the back swing so his second opponent is always forced into movement. When the second opponent does something complex he stops concentrating on dodging and it is one of these attacks that although not intended to cause damage does in fact connect and hurt.

I think my house rule depicts that: he has a chance to conect a blow but not one at his full combat ability.

This is why paralized people don't suffer AoO - as soon as they stop moving people in combat no longer consider them a threat and so don't flail at them and so there are no random attacks the paralized character can accidentally get in the way of.

I disagree with this. One should still have the choice to blow one of his combat resources to whatever he likes: this is what d&d and its tactical combat is about- there are no psychology tests asigned to choices.

In my mind the rule reason for having paralized people not suffer AoOs is obvious (double penalities) and I can easily see a 'real world' reason for the rule being there.

I'm interested to see how 4th ed has simplified the list of things that cause AoOs.

Well, with my house rule one chosing to deliver an AoO is usually penalized in combat, so this can offset the double penalty -whith the correct tactical support.

EDIT (there, more clear): If one wants to deliver an AoO while his enemies stand next, he will suffer -10 to his dex modifier and thus AC to those that have initiative on him.

 

[two]

Hence, attack of opportunity.

Besides, it's only active if the player (or DM) sees an opportunity and interrupts to make the attack.


Only if he does it in the square that is threatened by his enemy ... or CN player-killer.

Why? Should I reward players' stupidity?


Well, duh.

Again I ask, should I reward stupidity?



As one poster already stated, the two foes can just use coup de grace and kill you in one stroke.

If you want, add to the rules that any character who is helpless provokes AoO.

I'm not sure you understand the problem, or my point.

I'm not asking for players, when they do dumb things, NOT to have AOO's against them.

I'm asking for AOO's to be consistent.

Drinking a potion in combat = stupid = get hit with AOO.

Being paralyzed in combat = stupid situation = get hit with AOO.

Consistency.

And, as everyone and his uncle have pointed out, there should be no need to do a full round action (coup de grace) which might actually fail if interrupted. A condition (paralysis) worse than something that triggers an AOO (potion drinking) should trigger an AOO which the enemy could take IF THEY WANT instead of doing a coup de grace.

In other words, they should have the option to either get the free attack and move to another enemy, or sit there the whole round doing the coup de grace.

 

[two]

++++Originally Posted by BeauNiddle
This is why paralized people don't suffer AoO - as soon as they stop moving people in combat no longer consider them a threat and so don't flail at them and so there are no random attacks the paralized character can accidentally get in the way of.+++

This is a common counter-argument and simply wrong.

It is actually provably wrong.

A paralyzed wizard standing in combat generates no AOO's for being paralyzed.

A paralyzed wizard standing in combat who casts a stilled, silent spell generates an AOO for casting a spell in combat.

In both cases the wizard has stopped moving and "people in combat no longer consider them a threat and so don't flail at them and so there are no random attacks the paralized character can accidentally get in the way of".

But one of them generates an AOO, and the other does not.

 

[xechnao]

two, just above I have mentioned allready two times my house rule. Sorry for being repetitive here but I still would like your comment.

I know it is crunchy and certainly not simpler but I think it can depict AoO more realisticaly.
Anyway, I rule out tumbling and feats on the domain of AoO since I believe the rule itself may cover and make space for tactical choices the same if not even better, albeit a bit differently.

So, what do you think?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What I found scary about this example is there is a competant fighter who allowed an enemy to walk up beside him without doing anything.

In your mind you seem to view the fighter as being in a single combat with one foe and a spectator being nearby.

Just to clarify...I wasn't talking about a fighter having two opponents and ignoring one of them, or having some sort of "spectator". I was talking about a fighter and his opponent simply standing in threat range to another pair of combatants (or a group, if you like). Happens often enough in a combat where there are more enemies than characters. And the second opponent who causes an AoO doesn't even have to stand somewhere in front of the fighter, he just needs to be in threat range. And the point I was trying to make was that it sounds, to me, a bit hokey to say that the fighter can simply turn around halfways, smack that other combatant with an AoO, and resume his own fight, without even a penalty or danger, if usually making two attacks with a full attack option causes you to forfeit movement, and simply trying to disarm your opponent already causes an AoO.

 

[HeinorNY]

A paralyzed wizard standing in combat generates no AOO's for being paralyzed.

A paralyzed wizard standing in combat who casts a stilled, silent spell generates an AOO for casting a spell in combat.

In both cases the wizard has stopped moving and "people in combat no longer consider them a threat and so don't flail at them and so there are no random attacks the paralized character can accidentally get in the way of".

But one of them generates an AOO, and the other does not.

Then you don't have a problem with AoO's, but with some specific situations that don't make sense for you.

Just make a house rule: a spellcaster that casts a spell with no somatic, material, focus and verbal components while paralysed does not provoke AoO's.

Does that make sense? Yes.
Is that balanced? I think so.
Does the PHB need to waste its space with such a specific ruling? No. That's up for the DM's to adjust their games.

AoO is a very metagame and abstract rule, and rules like that such as AC and HP don't make any sense in some very specific situations with we try to deeply rationalize them. You can create mini house rules to address all these little inconsistencies in order to fell better about them, but the way they are doesn't break the game, it just looks odd.

But by doing that, you can very easily break the game, or create even more absurd or unbeliavable situations.

If instead a character must make a concentration check in order to drink a potion, suddenly wizards and sorcerers become the masters of melee-potion-drinking.
If instead characters get flat-footed, barbarians with uncanny dodge can do whatever they want in combat.

Being paralyzed in combat = stupid situation = get hit with AOO.

From the metagame bunker, that's false.
Bad choices should be penalyzed, and you don't choose to be paralyzed.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If instead a character must make a concentration check in order to drink a potion, suddenly wizards and sorcerers become the masters of melee-potion-drinking.

Then you don't have a problem with Concentration checks, but with some specific situations that don't make sense to you. Just make a house rule: Concentration becomes a class skill for everybody.

If instead characters get flat-footed, barbarians with uncanny dodge can do whatever they want in combat.

Most barbarians already do whatever they want in combat, since their d12-laden frames are not really that impressed by a potential AoO.

Thing is, those suggestions would serve better when combined with a reduction of the number of actions in combat that provoke an AoO in the first place. On the other hand, so would the original 3E rules.