AOO's have to go, or be changed

[Drowbane]

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 were in reach of a sharp blade as it cut through your buddy and kept on swinging... in your direction. I dunno, I don't understand the confusion about AoOs... never have.

 

[xechnao]

Yes, exactly. As I said earlier:

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.​

Hmm, I think this does not solve the problem of the AoO as the OP put it. Remember the case about paralization and being helpless.
If one gets paralized in front of me, can I get an AoO or not?
Your answer is that yes, you can hit him right now if you like but you will be trading your attack of your normal round.
So what bonus does one get in each case-that is for trading or for not trading his attack and what malus does one get for initialy exposing himself-exposing himself first place?

You see, what you answer here is not how to fix the AoO but rather how initiative works. If I cast a spell for example in melee or use a slow weapon, I have a relative penalty in my initiative roll. This is the rule that takes into consideration your logic here-it is the initiative rule.

 

[xechnao]

I don't agree with these AoO situations:
- For simply moving through someone's threat zone unless the attacker has *no* other melee opponents and knows the move is coming (in other words, is prepared).

Set to receive a charge

- An AoO from any opponent not smart enough to recognize the opportunity.

This rule exists allready: you can have as much AoO as your attacks. People with more combat prowess can make more AoO.

 

[xechnao]

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?

Combat is a deadly risky affair. If one is to make it, it must be through combat tactics. This is d&d. There must be tactical choices that address this situation: that is, one must be able to have to hinder AoO on helpless characters through special tactics, that he may choose to do or not choose to do (for example he may not if his combat strategy decides to take that risk).

 

[HeinorNY]

If the problem is the paralyzed guy, just make a house rule: If you normally attack a helpless opponent, you can choose to spend your AoO for that round as an extra attack against that opponent.

You trade a certain kill (coup de grace) but avoid an AoO from another opponent.

 

[Oldtimer]

This rule exists allready: you can have as much AoO as your attacks. People with more combat prowess can make more AoO.

Exists where? Not in 3.x D&D.

 

[xechnao]

If the problem is the paralyzed guy, just make a house rule: If you normally attack a helpless opponent, you can choose to spend your AoO for that round as an extra attack against that opponent.

You trade a certain kill (coup de grace) but avoid an AoO from another opponent.

Why do you say you trade it? If you fail your AoO you still have the chance of a cdg at your turn the way you put the rule, no?

Btw, we have solved(see house ruled) the problems of AoO allready. I am not gonna to repeat it though. I have said above two times.

 

[HeinorNY]

Why do you say you trade it? If you fail your AoO you still have the chance of a cdg at your turn the way you put the rule, no?

By your logic the character could make the AoO attack and then just attack another guy, that would render the house rules useless. Read it again, "if you normally attack an opponent", so the AoO comes after you attacked the opponent.

I have to be honest, this a poor house rule, but that's also a poor complain about AoO's, IMO.

Btw, we have solved(see house ruled) the problems of AoO allready. I am not gonna to repeat it though. I have said above two times.

Sorry, I don't want to waste you precious time, but WHOA we solved the AoO problem????
OMG can you please point me to the post? After 8 years my dream will come true!

 

[mmadsen]

Hmm, I think this does not solve the problem of the AoO as the OP put it.

Naturally, I think it does. The problem was the inconsistency. Why, if someone puts their guard down, do I get a free attack, but, if they can't keep their guard up, I do not get a free attack?

Remember the case about paralization and being helpless. If one gets paralized in front of me, can I get an AoO or not? Your answer is that yes, you can hit him right now if you like but you will be trading your attack of your normal round.

Yes, exactly. The free attack is no longer free, just early -- which is still quite useful and important when someone is trying to run past you, but largely meaningless when there's no need to interrupt anyone.

So what bonus does one get in each case-that is for trading or for not trading his attack and what malus does one get for initialy exposing himself-exposing himself first place?

There are two important elements to my suggestion. The first is that free Attacks of Opportunity become early Opportunities to Attack. This allows a turn-based game to behave more like a real-time game, with interruptible acts getting interrupted.

The second element is that letting one's guard down to drink a potion or shoot a bow should leave one flat-footed -- or "almost" flat-footed, if that seems too harsh. The current quasi-condition of being flanked might be appropriate.

You see, what you answer here is not how to fix the AoO but rather how initiative works.

Again, one key element of the Attack-of-Opportunity rules is that they allow a turn-based game to behave more like a real-time game, because some acts, like running past an armed opponent, should be interruptible. If you would like to label that an "initiative" issue, then we can call it that.

The designers decided to use the same mechanic for letting one's guard down in melee, but I think there's a better answer, which is to treat such characters as flat-footed or flanked -- and probably to give their opponents the opportunity to interrupt what they're doing, too.

 

[Will]

Anyone think it'd break things horribly to simply say 'if your guard is down, you draw AoOs'?

Base rule is one AoO per cause per target, so yeah, while it sucks if you go paralyzed in the middle of a group... how often does that happen?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you DO go helpless in the middle of a crowd of enemies, you SHOULD be screwed.