AOO's have to go, or be changed

[DM_Blake]

A nicely written post...just this little "stretch" falls flat if you check what the rules actually allow as an AoO...it includes Trip attacks, Disarming, and even Grappling (at least per SRD). I'd say it's a pretty big stretch to view a Grapple attempt as an AoO as an instinctive backhand swipe, as much as it sounds nice to do so.

Well, yeah, I knew the rationalization was a stretch. I even said so when I wrote it.

Even then, continuing the stretch:

If you view a trip as simply sticking your leg out while someone moves by, yeah, that can fit the rationalization. But if you view it as a martial sweep, or as putting your leg behind someone then pushing them back over your leg, then no, that's a fairly conscious effort. So tripping someone running past you might be reflexive, but tripping a stationary mage casting a spell probably isn't.

If you view a disarm as smacking someone's weapon so hard that they drop it, then it might be reflexive, but if you view it as a fancy fencing move where you swoop your blade around your opponent's blade, then it's not very reflexive.

If you view a grapple as a quick grab to snag someone's arm or shirt, then it might be reflexive (assuming the additional grapple options to inflict damage or to pin someone must be taken on your own round), but if you assume that the entire grapple, including pinning and damaging, is all done as the AoO, then it's not very reflexive.

All of this can be handwaved with fluff descriptions of what you're really doing. That fluff might be different for an AoO than it is for an action you take on your own round.

Then again, this was just a rationalization exercise to begin with.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.​

I'm not sure this works. It creates new wacky scenarios.

An orc is attacking a wizard, and the wizard's figter ally wants to prevent the orc from killing the wizard. All the fighter has to do is run past the orc to hit him from behind with flanking. That +2 on the attack roll helps insure that the fighter will take out the orc. Of course, the orc doesn't want this to happen.

In your suggested early attack opportunity (EAO), the orc now has to decide: should I attack that heavily armored fighter as he runs past me, probably miss him with all that armor or only wound him with all his HP if I even hit him, or shold I let him get behind me and soak up his attack and hope I'm still alive to kill this wizard.

Essentially, clever players will figure out very quickly how to use the heavily armrored guys to suck up attacks that could have been used against the weaker party members. Heck, toss some Mobility on the fighters and really let them draw all the fire.

That fighter knows that either the orc will waste his precious 1 attack by taking his EAO, which will save the wizard, or the orc will choose not to take the EAO so he can attack the wizard later, wh ich allows the fighter to get into perfect position to maximize his combat advantage. It's all win-win for the fighter. There is no lose outcome.

With the current AoO system, that orc will always attack because the orc doesn't have to give up his swing at the wizard in order to swing at the fighter. In the AoO system, if the fighter wanted to use that strategy, he has to consider that both characters might get hit and take damage, which would result in more cleric resources being used. If resource management is a factor, maybe the fighter would choose a less "draw the fire" solution. Now at least there is a possible lose outcome, so maybe it's not the automatic win-win strategy.

Another scenairo that could easily be abused is if someone is clearly not as threatening as one of his allies, he can freely do whatever he wants in combat, provoke a dozen EAOs if he wants to, because he knows the enemy won't give up a chance to eliminate the threatening ally to use those EAOs against him.

I guess what I'm saying is that a D&D combat system that lets a combatant dictate how the enemy can use his limited number of attacks is easy to manipulate. But if the system punishes poor combat decisions without using the limited attacks of the combatants, then bad combat decisions always have consequences.

 

[DM_Blake]

Anyway, a possible alternate version could be:

Drawing AoO remains the same.

An AoO is only a single attack with the melee weapon readied in your primary hand. You cannot cleave on an AoO.

Taking an AoO can only be done if either your previous action or your next action includes a melee attack.
As an immediate action you may declare that a target you threaten has drawn an AoO from you.

Combat Reflexes:
Each AoO taken beyond the first incurs a -2 penalty to hit and to AC that last until the end of your next turn.


This version does ramp up the damage that can be dealt in a round and makes Combat Reflexes a very valuable feat... but it does solve the 'why can't I hit a sleeping guy' argument.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

The first part about limiting attacks of opportunity makes sense. I don't know if it's written in the core system or just a house rule, but I have never allowed cleave on an AoO. People always attack with their weapons.

As for the limit of only taking an AoO if the previous or next action is a melee attack, I'm not so sure about the need for that. I don't see why a cleric with a mace in his hand can't bonk someone running past him, then cast a spell on his own round.

And the part about the Combat Reflexes feat really confuses me. How does putting a fairly hefty limit on Combat Reflexes make it "very valuable feat"? As it is (without your limitiation), most players avoid this feat, or take it because it's a prerequisite for other feats. Even the players who have it hardly ever get to use it - not many situations come up where two different foes each provoke an AoO in the same round.

Or were you suggesting that those penalties are applied to whoever provoked the attacks of opportunity?

 

[DM_Blake]

There has to be a way to get away from the "I do all my stuff, then you do all your stuff" model that doesn't grind everything to a halt. One simple method of getting at least partway there (though it does slow things down) is to give everything its own initiative. If you have 3 attacks in a round, each gets its own initiative. If you're going to move and attack, you move on your first initiative and attack on your second. This still doesn't solve the "I'm here, then I'm there" movement problem...movement should take game-measurable time...but it's a start. I'm also a huge fan of re-rolling initiative each round, to avoid people basing their tactics on "who goes first"; in a d20 system with potentially massive init. modifiers this isn't very practical (particularly if everything gets its own init.) but in a 1e d6 init. system it works just fine.

Ouch. This sounds pretty time consuming. D&D combat takes a long time now. Are we sure we want to slow it down?

Now, as for AoO's...there *is* a place for them now and then, but only in the following situations and even here not every time:
- If someone turns his back and flees from melee, the opponent should get an AoO.
- If someone drinks a potion in melee, or rummages through her backpack, then AoO.
- If someone is foolish enough to try casting a spell in melee, then AoO*.
- If someone fumbles, assuming your game uses fumble rules (depending on the type of fumble).

Except, people flee from melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from behind.

I think the exisitng rules where a combat move (moving somewhere then taking a combat action, even drinking a potion) provokes an AoO when you move away, but fleeing (a Withdraw action) doesn't, is a fairly simple solution.

* and the spell should automatically fail if the AoO hits - none of this concentration stuff. If you want to cast spells, get behind the front line...and if you're still under attack, get help.

Wizards are already fragile. This would almost guarantee that a fighter in melee with a wizard will always win. At least with the current rules, if the wizard survives the AoO, he only needs to make a Concentration check that might not be too hard if he has kept up his ranks in Concentration. He should be able to get off some of his spells.

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).
- An AoO against someone getting to her feet while still capable of defending, unless she attacks or otherwise leaves herself vulnerable.
- An AoO against someone using a bow *unless* the attacker is not the target and has no other melee opponents.
- An AoO from any opponent not smart enough to recognize the opportunity.

Moving past an armed enemy should be dangerous. Moving takes time, so he shouldn't have to prepare for it in advance - nobody moves faster than a sword can be swung. Assuming combatants are not standing confined in their little 5' battle mat squares, it's reasonable to assume that much of the time a combatant's nearest enemies are not in immediate attack range, so he is often free to take a quick swipe at someone without getting gorked in return - he can swing (his AoO) then return to a defensive posture, faster than his opponents can realize what's happening, react to it, and land an effective blow. At least some of the time. Adjudicating when he can and can't can be problematic in a game system where everyone freezes in their 5' squares until their turn.

Standing up without any feats to allow you to stand up safely implies that you're not doing a martial artsy "kip up" maneuver. You're getting up like everyone else: rolling onto your front side, rising to your hands and knees, then rising to your feet. Yeah, that should be as dangerous in a melee as drinking a potion.

Part of the whole AoO mentality is that when someone is threatening you with a weapon that can hurt you, you take precautions not to be hurt, so your number of attacks are limited, and you don't get any AoO against an armed combatant threatening you. But someone standing there with an unloaded bow, who is reaching to draw an arrow from a quiver, placing that arrow on the string, drawing the bow, then finally able to point it at you and threaten you, and doing all tha preparatory stuff within your reach, is asking for a beating, and you should be able to give it to him. Heck, even just pointing a readied bow at you from a couple feet away, while you're holding a sword, might be problematic - that big old bow, held out at his arm's fully extended reach, is an easy target, even if the bowman is a bit out of reach.

As for your final point, I totally agree. A wizard starting to cast a spell right next to a giant stag beetle should probably not provoke an AoO any more than his fighter friend who is swinging a sword. But, arguably, if the beetle is aggressively attacking that wizard, and the wizard stops ducking and weaving long enough to stand still, drop his guard, and cast a spell, he should probably pay the price. So this one might be situational - provoking an AoO against a an opponent not smart enough to know the difference shouldn't actually provoke unless you were that opponent's target anyway.
Lanefan[/QUOTE]

 

[DM_Blake]

GURPS tried to break turns into tiny, tiny slices of time, one second each, so you'd move on one turn, then attack once on another turn, etc. That can cause its own problems, particularly if you layer all kinds of rules on top of such a finely granular system.

I built a home-made spin off of 2nd Ed. D&D using a system much like this.

Initiative started at 1, and incrimented by 1 until the end of combat. A quick combat might end at initiative 10 or 15, a long combat might end at initiative 100 or more. These represented seconds, so a combat ending at initiative 30 took 30 seconds of game time.

Each player rolled a d10 at the start of combat. A high DEX score reduced the result, but never less than 1. This was when he could act.

His action added a number to this. Swinging a light weapon added 2, medium weapon added 3, heavy weapon added 4 (these values represent preparing, swinging, and recovering times all bundled together), drinking a potion added 5, or whatever (I don't remember the actual numbers I used).

So, for example, an Elf rolls a 7, has a DEX mod of -3, and stabs with a rapier which adds 2, his initiative would be 6. Once he acts, he then rolls again, applies his DEX, adds in his action, and adds all that to the 6, so maybe his next action might be on 10, and the next one on 18, and so on.

The numbers just kept going up. Some seconds nothing happened, other seconds might have several people acting at the same time. Ties were usually won by highest DEX and/or longest weapon going first, or when that didn't apply, attacks were resolved simultaneously, which could allow for two combatants to kill each other at the same time.

It sounds a little cumbersome, but once the players got used to it, everyone liked it and combat moved as fast as it would have in the official 2nd Ed. D&D rules.

It allowed for a quick fighter to use daggers as his primary weapon, and be pretty much as effective as a slower fighter with a 2-h sword, because he could attack more often.

Nobody ever knew when their allies or enemies would act next - it was strictly enforced that players don't announce in advance, although they could announce that they were preparing to attack with their readied mace, or that they were preparing to cast a spell, so their allies (and enemies) could decide on their own actions, but without knowing the exact second that action would take place.

Combatants who reached the second that they could begin to act could then delay their action, just like 3e D&D allows readied actions, so that they could try to interrupt spellcasting, or whatever, later in the combat.

I haven't thought about that system in over a decade, but this thread reminded me of it, and we sure used to enjoy it.

I had no provisions for attacks of opportunity. 3e wasn't out yet, and I hadn't ever thought of such a mechanic.

Maybe I should go dust it off and see how applicable it is to my current 3.5 campaign...

 

[mmadsen]

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

No, I don't think it would break things horribly. In fact, it's a decent quick fix -- if that's what you're looking for. But I don't think everyone's content with the current rules.

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

Well, there's screwed and there's screwed.

If the enemy gets free attacks, we can guarantee that they'll all take free attacks on the paralyzed guy -- and their usual attacks either against the paralyzed guy or against whomever they were originally engaged with.

I'd like to see them left with the choice: Do I attack the guy who can't dodge, but who's no threat to me, or do I attack the angry guy who's trying to kill me?

 

[Sadrik]

There has to be a way to get away from the "I do all my stuff, then you do all your stuff" model that doesn't grind everything to a halt.

You make it more granular and do one action a round instead of two. So you either move, attack, fetch something out of a bag etc.

In my opinion AoO can go right out the window and I would miss a thing. In fact I would be happier if they did.

I think how they will do it is have reaction like martial abilities that give you free attacks if someone next to you does a triggering action. The triggering action might be: casting a spell, dropping an opponent (cleave), using a ranged attack, or fetching something from a bag. These make sense, because they will be limited in number (per encounter abilities). Then you don't have to worry about conceptualizing if a door can get hit by an AoO because it is obviously not a trigger effect for the ability.

 

[Gort]

I'd like to see them left with the choice: Do I attack the guy who can't dodge, but who's no threat to me, or do I attack the angry guy who's trying to kill me?

Thing is, in the case of someone who's been hold person-ed, pinned, or otherwise rendered helpless, they can often become a threat again really fast - dispel magic or a successful will save to get out of hold person or a successful grapple check to get out of pinning. Even if the guy's bleeding to death he's only a heal spell away from being on full hitpoints again.

It's a really good idea to kick guys while they're down in D&D. Anyone who's still breathing can become a threat again really fast.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm not sure this works. It creates new wacky scenarios.

I'm definitely interested in any wacky scenarios that might arise from replacing free Attacks of Opportunity with early Opportunities to Attack -- but I don't see the example you gave as particularly wacky or laden with unintended consequences.

I don't see it as a problem that an orc facing a wizard might have to decide whether or not to attack the heavily armored fighter trying to pass him to attack from his flank. In fact, using heavily armored fighters to "draw fire" sounds both reasonable and tactically interesting.

 

[Betote]

I think AoO of some sort will be (or at least should be) in 4E, and I thinkt it might read more or less like this:

"Once per turn you can make an attack as an inmediate action targeting an opponent against who you have combat advantage".

We know that "combat advantage" is a term adopted by 4E, and a free attack seems rather combat advantagey to me