Attack of Opportunity -- does it deserve to survive to v.4?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not meant as an insult. However to me a player spending 10 minutes plotting an intricate tapdance around a map in order to maximize his bonuses and minimize his weaknesses in a supposed wild melee is as irksome as "Mother May I?" may be to you and SR. Instead of "Mother May I" we have the super PC who simply by virtue of being able to cartwheel can pass through a phalanx of spearmen, and when told otherwise pouts and points at the rules. Too many rules lead to situations like that where common sense tells you that it should play out otherwise but when certain players are deprived of the precious certainty of their rules they have hissy fits. It seems they are incapable of or unwilling to try "out of the book" thinking.

You should have phrased it differently. Instead of suggesting they're not thinking, you could have suggested they're not "thinking outside the box". The latter is hardly viewed as an insult (at least not when I view it).

 

[Montague68]

You should have phrased it differently. Instead of suggesting they're not thinking, you could have suggested they're not "thinking outside the box". The latter is hardly viewed as an insult (at least not when I view it).

Probably. It was meant as exaggeration to make a point which is hard to do on ye olde Net.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Gygax's version of D&D was very wargame-based. More so than the current version. Look at 1e, with its ranges and movement expressed in inches, weapon speeds, AC modifiers, unarmed combat percentile charts and so on and so forth. 1e AD&D, as written, was very much a tactical wargame. A lot of people want to pretend this is a recent thing, but at its core D&D bears markings of its heritage, and always will.

Like the the 1 minute Round and the 10 minute Turn, for example. For a true roleplaying or even a tactical skirmish game this coarseness was always laughable and confusing. But it was just an adaptation of old standards for simulating historical battles with miniatures.

Gygax just went with 1 figure = 1 man -- a peculiar corner case in a realm where more commonly 1 figure = 1 company or 1 battalion of soldiers, although there were always abreadth of experimentation in customizing everything with the local gaming clubs house rules. It makes sense to say that you cannot give useful orders to 100 or 1000 men on a timescale smaller than 10 minutes (or perhaps 1 minute in peculiar circumstances).

 

[Mercule]

There is, of course, room for improvement, but I think AoO should stay.

They're actually a pretty simple mechanic and can quickly become second nature to deal with. Sure, they impact your actions, but very, very rarely do I actually see anyone draw an AoO. They're just so easy to avoid -- don't do dumb stuff.

If you want to talk about red herrings and strawmen, it's the notion that AoOs are time-consuming or complex. IME, I get more questions about the +5/10/15 bonuses to Cure Lt/Md/et al. spells than I do on AoOs.

 

[painandgreed]

If I was going to design 4E, I think I'd leave them out. IIRC, some actions invoke AoO, while doing nothing doesn't, even if just laying there. So if I attack you while you stand there I get all my attacks, but if I attack you and you cast a spell, I get all my attacks plus one. Intead, I think I'd have a rule that preforming any action that currently causes an AoO would incure an AC penalty, and any character whose threatened square you are in that has not already attacked may move their initiative up to attack before said action is completed.

 

[kigmatzomat]

....we have the super PC who simply by virtue of being able to cartwheel can pass through a phalanx of spearmen, and when told otherwise pouts and points at the rules.

Yeah, that ticked me off too.

For phalanxes and tumble I added a house rule that states:

people with one handed piercing weapons may fight in close ranks, taking half the normal space (e.g. 2.5' for a medium creature), but have their dex bonus reduced to +0 just like some heavy armors (they are NOT treated as having been denied their dex bonus). Close ranks are considered impassable for purposes of tumbling and movement (even for allies). Members of close ranks receive a +4 circumstance bonus to resist bullrush & trip.

I've also added a "body shield" that requires a special proficiency due to the large size. The body shield grants +2 AC under normal conditions but provides an additional +1 cover bonus to the weilder and those on each side in close ranks. If you read closely, that means the person on the end gets a +2 shield & +2 cover AC bonus while the person in the center gets a +2 shield and +3 cover AC bonus.

In the vein of the Complete combat actions I have a feat/class feature that grants phalanx movement, a +4 bonus to crossing unstable terrain in a phalanx. It also allows ranks within a phalanx to change places but it requires holding/delaying action so that the rank change occurs on the same action.

There is a dwarf-only feat that allows use of slashing weapons (e.g. axes) in phalanxes.

Can you tell I like the idea of phalanxes?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is another major problem I have with AOOs, I think they are too harsh a condition. An extra attack could mean a lot of damage for the player, with that kind of risk you need a major reward, and they're are few combat actions out there worth that kind of risk, especially when the action itself is risky.

Perhaps I am used to playing in larger parties where there are a lot of mooks? I find that sucking up the AoO makes sense if you choose carefully. Yeah, you have to show the Dragon some respect...but many mooks, and most archers, wizards, and clerics have AoOs that can be ignored if you get good tactical positioning in the bargain.

 

[babomb]

My guess is they'll be simplified in the next edition because so many people seem to have trouble with them. Personally, I don't see what's so hard about them: I've understood the AoO rules perfectly since well before 3e came out, thanks to the website of a certain Eric Noah.

 

[ruleslawyer]

In Spycraft 2.0, for instance, anything that would 'provoke an AoO' in D&D makes you flatfooted (or it's equivalent, I forget the details). That is a nice reflection of a penalty that you sometimes really don't want to take!

Hmm; interesting! How does Combat Reflexes work in Spycraft, or do they throw it out?

 

[Lanefan]

Except he's not the one thinking. I can certainly think about what should happen if I swing for the chandelier.

So, I have to break out of the game, tell the DM what I want to do and ask if he thinks it might work. I might even have to argue my position. Even worse, I might have one of the DMs that like to say "try it and see." Great, my masterful fighter then has to rely on my judgement of the DMs opinion about a tricky maneuver.

Sure, that can work. It works a lot better if there is a mechanic that deals with that sort of situation and can work from it.

Leading to the game becoming buried in corner-case rules and rulings. Yecch!!!

"Try it and see" is the ideal DM's response! In-game, the PC has no idea whether the chain will hold her weight, whether the foe will have moved in the meantime, and so on. The DM simply assigns an unspoken DC to the task and rolls, then says yes you made it, or no you didn't make it, or you're now lying on the floor wearing the remains of a chandelier.

Making judgement calls like this is just part of being a DM. If a player asks "On a quick glance, do I think I can use the chandelier to swing across to relieve our outnumbered Cleric?", the DM can then give rough odds as in "It'll reach, but you're not at all sure about that chain - it looks a little rusty - and it's possible some enemies below might get free shots at you as you swing by overhead. Still, if you want to try it, roll me a d20." But if a player doesn't ask, just says "I'm swinging on the chandelier to relieve the Cleric" then the DM has to make a snap judgement.

I fail to see the problem.

Lanefan