AOO's have to go, or be changed

[two]

confused

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.


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

I took this extreme example to indicate that the common misconception behind AOO's (that it indicates a loss of concentration while dodging blows and stuff) is simply not true. It's flavor text and not true to the mechanics.

You agree with me, apparently. Cool. Great. My point was made.

Everyone keeps telling me that AOO's are a metagame rule. Well, aren't all rules metagame? There is no "damage hit dice" for weapons for a PC; no AC; no hit points.

But PC's know bigger weapons does more damage; more armor makes you safer;more experience in combat lets you survive combat blows.

No, PC's don't know about AOO's, but they do know (VERY well) not to do certain things around a giant: drink a potion, stand up from prone, etc. Unless they have one of the feats in the game that allows them to ignore or exploit AOO's. The PC's don't know the term AOO, but they sure as heck know the result (a potential attack), and how to minimize it or maximize it. The feats they can choose certainly indicate that this is in-game knowledge to some extent.

I'm not suggesting that PC's make a concentration check to drink potions. That was somebody else.

I'm not in a "metagame bunker."

"Bad choices should be penalyzed, and you don't choose to be paralyzed."

That is completely your own little hobby horse.

You can also be penalized with an AOO with the current ruleset if you are, for example, bullrushed through an enemies zone of control. So this is not even right in 3.5. I'd suggest just dropping it.

The AOO mechanic was supposed to represent the danger of doing something else besides paying attention to the battle WHILE in battle.

To be ultra-clear: I don't care about house rules. I don't need them, I am not asking for them. I am not asking for a "fix" to 3.5 AOO rules. I can do that fine myself.

What am I am trying to say is this:

The 3.5 AOO rules are inconsistent, and give rise rather easily to stupid inconsistent results, and I wonder how 4e will fix/revise them (if they do).

I also, incidentally, think the way AOO's are handled in 3.5 leads to worse game play, which could be improved in 4.

Take this example:

16 scorpian attacks fighter1, paralyzes him.
15 cleric1's action
14 fighter1's action (currently paralyzed).

If I had my way, various conditions (paralyzed, sleeping, blind) would generate AOO's automatically if the PC has the condition at the start of their turn. This is one potential fix that 4 might select.

In 3.5, the cleric1 does whatever, and although fighter1 is paralyzed, the cleric does not have to worry too much; the rest of the party can act before the scorpion's next turn.

In my hypothetical 4, cleric1 knows that the fighter is in a really bad spot. Being paralyzed in front of a giant nasty scorpion - that's bad. So does the cleric allow the AOO to happen on the fighter's turn? Does the cleric try to stop the paralysis? Does the cleric draw away the scorpion's attacks via some new 4 mechanic? etc. There are more interesting choices to be made, and even better: it's logical and consistent that fighter1 is in a lot of trouble. It makes sense that the party needs to do something about his paralysis immediately, or he will likely be hit and hurt, bad.

What are some other ways that 4 might make things consistent, while allowing for AOO's?

I mean, you could just drop them altogether, but I actually like AOO's. I wish they just made sense in 3.5.

 

[xechnao]

To be ultra-clear: I don't care about house rules. I don't need them, I am not asking for them. I am not asking for a "fix" to 3.5 AOO rules. I can do that fine myself.

What am I am trying to say is this:

The 3.5 AOO rules are inconsistent, and give rise rather easily to stupid inconsistent results, and I wonder how 4e will fix/revise them (if they do).

Please explain this better, because it does not make a lot of sense to me. How can we offer insight right now to a 4e fix while at the same time not caring for a 3.5ed fix.

 

[LostSoul]

The 3.5 AOO rules are inconsistent, and give rise rather easily to stupid inconsistent results, and I wonder how 4e will fix/revise them (if they do).

They are consistent - you draw AoOs when you draw them. Inconsistent would be like, "The DM decides when you draw AoOs." And then only if the DM ruled inconsistently.

They do what they are supposed to - add tactical depth to the game.

What you're having a problem with is that they don't apply when you want them to.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Have we mentioned Cleave off of AoOs yet? Just because my buddy did something foolish, provoking an AoO and getting killed, why should I get a free (Cleave) attack against me? What did I ever do?

You depended on your buddy to not get killed and based your defense on that, but your buddy got killed and now you aren't properly defending yourself anymore.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But putting in arbitrary "You can't do that" rules in a RPG, specifically applied to things people CAN do, is counterproductive.

What if that guy says "Well, I am hoping the ogre will miss, so I'll take my chances." What then? Still tell him "Nope. You can drink the potion if you were 10' farther away, but you can't drink it, at all, no chnce, impossible, where you are standing"?

That would make no sense.

Tell him it's crazy to even try. Tell him it's suicidal. Tell him the ogre will cream him into a pink paste on the floor. But don't tell him he can't.

And I think this is a great reason why AoO's are in there. Because no way in heck do I want to tell a player "you can't." It's simple, but it's limiting.

The skill check is something that could be usable, but it's still got the problem of "another roll interrupts the flow of the action" that AoO's have. Less problems, but not problem solved.

There is a happy middle ground between using AoO's and the tactical element they introduce (which is something I'd like the game to keep) and the slowness, nonsense, and general headache caused by them. I just have to find it....hehe.

 

[DM_Blake]

So what is the answer?

In 3.5, the current rules for AoO do, for the most part, just what they’re supposed to do. They punish people for dropping their guard (drinking a potion, concentrating on a spell, etc.), or overextending themselves (untrained disarm, grapple, or trip) during close personal combat. They motivate people to see to their own safety, such as getting out of range if they can, before dropping their guard. The penalty can be severe, but usually isn’t life threatening unless the guy dropping his guard is fairly close to death or his opponent is extremely deadly.

Facing shouldn’t be an issue. I’m quite certain that in 6 whole seconds of life-and-death combat, every combatant will be at least scanning his flanks for additional threats, and reacting to them if he finds them.

These rules don’t always make sense. Some cases have been pointed out here. But it is already deadly enough to be at –x HP, and almost equally deadly to be paralyzed or held in combat. Adding extra lethality to these situations only helps the monsters, not the players – only the player characters really suffer from being killed, since the monsters are expected, in a metagame sense, to be killed.

How deadly do you want combat to be? Should Hold Person give every orc in reach a free shot at the unlucky PC? Most of them will hit, since his DEX is effectively 0 causing him to be -5 AC below his Flatfooted AC. Particularly intelligent and vicious bad guys might position themselves close to the paralyzed combatant so that they can attack one of his friends and enjoy the free AoO against the paralyzed guy – a free extra attack.

And even then, if you do allow this condition, the case of “I want to spend my AoO this round to strike the door next to me” question comes into play. Should that, or shouldn’t that, be an attack the player makes on his own turn?

********************

The only real problem I see here comes from the stationary nature of D&D combat. We put our miniatures on the table, then we only move them on our turn. They move once every 6 seconds, then stand still, frozen in time on the battle mat. Each miniature spends the full 6 seconds stationary in a little 5’ square. No two creatures move at the same time – each miniature moves his full move, makes his attacks, then freezes in place for the next miniature to move.

This gives us a warped perspective of what is really happening during that combat.

An example was (given in a post above) of a wizard in reach of a dragon. If the wizard stands still, the dragon can’t attack him out of turn. But if the wizard begins casting a spell, the dragon gets a free attack.

But this isn’t a mystery. If you look at the wizard’s miniature on the battle mat, that wizard is standing still. But if it were a real combat, that wizard would be ducking the dragon’s tail and wings, diving for cover from the dragon’s claws, scrambling to get out of the way when the dragon turns its bulky body around and almost squishes him. That wizard wouldn’t stay in a 5’ square, mysteriously rooted there until 6 seconds have gone by before he decides to act.

No, if this were a real combat (as if wizards and dragons were real), that wizard would be all over the place. The dragon would too. Maybe the dragon would batter him, maybe not, but that wizard surely would not be standing there. Until he begins casting his spell, that is. The spell casting (at least per 3.5 rules), requires him to stand still while he casts. NOW the dragon can take his shot.

But, a combat like this, on a battle mat with miniatures, where everyone is moving constantly, every PC, every orc, every dragon, always in constant motion (unless they stand still to cast a spell or drink a potion or reload a crossbow, etc.), would be impossible to manage. How could any player or DM adjudicate such a combat.

So, D&D has turns. D&D has our miniatures standing frozen on the battle mat for 6 second intervals. It’s the only way we can track what’s going on and resolve a combat.

And if you look at it THAT way, then the AoO rules make sense. Or at least, the part where they only happen when someone triggers them makes sense, because we assume that when he’s not provoking an AoO, then he is actively avoiding all attacks as best he can.

********************

Now, as for AoO rules against helpless characters, that actually makes sense, from a “reality” perspective. But do we really want our PCs rolling new characters that often? I guarantee that any intelligent combatant, in a world where healers abound, will absolutely take every AoO against a prone and dying opponent, just to insure one of his friends doesn’t heal him. Even orcs and goblins are smart enough for that. If we had such a rule, DMs would either have to ignore it, or players would have to expect that getting knocked to negative HP is a death sentence when fighting any sentient opponent.

At least without such a rule, that sentient opponent is forced to make a decision. Should he hit the combatants who are currently a threat, or should he hit they prone and dying combatant? If he can only hit one of them, he will always choose to eliminate more threats. But, if he can hit them both, and doing so doesn’t interfere with his effort to eliminate more threats, then he will always choose to do both.

So, even though it imposes a bit of loss of realism, it is much safer for the player characters if every opponent must decide between gorking a dying foe or eliminating a threat.

We can even try to rationalize it by saying that an AoO is a quick backhanded attack you make when something catches your eye, or when a foe drops his guard. It’s instinctive. It’s a quick reaction you make with very little conscious direction. But a paralyzed or dying opponent doesn’t do anything to trigger that adrenaline surge, so no AoO. If you want to hit a paralyzed or dying opponent, you have to expend sufficient conscious volition that it counts as one of your actions on your turn.

That’s a stretch, but maybe not too much of a stretch to justify a game where PCs can survive their first couple of levels.

 

[mmadsen]

AoOs are one of the most graceful ways I've seen so far to inject real-time actions into a turn-based game.

If the goal is to inject real-time elements into a turn-based game -- and I think you're largely right in that -- then Attacks of Opportunity do not have to be free attacks.

Realistically, an orc should not be able to run right past Boromir simply because it's the orc's turn, not Boromir's -- but all we need to fix that problem is to allow Boromir to interrupt the orc's movement by taking his turn early. He doesn't need a free action, just an early one.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So what is the answer?

Depends on the game.

For my D&D games, my answer for 4e might be do derive a score for "taking 10" on an attack, compare that to the PC "taking 10" on a related skill, and when the PC wants to do the action, compare these scores. If the PC's score is higher, he can do it fine. If the monster's score is higher, he can do it, but he'll take damage.

It means a bit of extra prep work for the monsters, but it makes the game at the table quicker.

You know, for the occasional time that a 5' step doesn't fix the problem entirely.

For my FFZ games, the combat is abstract enough that I don't really have to worry about it. There's no precise movement, so characters are pretty much free to find a safe spot to do it.

 

[mmadsen]

My recommendations:

First, replace free Attacks of Opportunity with early Opportunities to Attack. This allows characters to interrupt one another despite the turn-based nature of the game, but without the paradoxes.

Second, have non-melee-combat acts, like drinking a potion or shooting a bow, leave a character flat-footed -- or introduce a condition like flat-footed but less severe, like the quasi-condition of being flanked under the current rules. Drinking a potion in melee does seem like exactly the kind of thing that would make it difficult to dodge after all.

Third, eliminate the oddball exceptions to the rules, like the immunity to Attacks of Opportunity when taking a 5' step or withdrawing.

 

[xechnao]

My recommendations:
First, replace free Attacks of Opportunity with early Opportunities to Attack. This always characters to interrupt one another despite the turn-based nature of the game, but without the paradoxes.

By early opportunities to attack you mean that you will be trading your attacks of your normal round with AoO?