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

[tzor]

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.

And to me it's probably as irritating as spending 10 minutes wish lawyering before making the final wish request. This is not the problem with AOO, this is the problem between fast play which gives the feeling of good action and a sit down think about every move for an hour type of game style, and this debate has been with the system since 1st edition. The same problem is true for chess. You can play slow chess and you can play speed chess with the same rules. Thinking fast with AOO should be encouraged. Frankly the AOO rules are intitutively obvious to even a casual observer.

This is not to say they can't be tweaked here and there, or even explained better.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I like AoO's and understand the mechanic, but I would like for it to be optional. That is, class abilities and feat prerequisites that offer benefits under the AoO system should have alternatives offered.

I would also like to see alternative combat rules for non-miniature combat.

 

[Driddle]

... thanks to the website of a certain Eric Noah.

Which Eric Noah would that be?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think the problem is not how often the AOOs is actually occurred, but in all of the thought in avoiding them. Movement is the big one, as has been mentioned, people will take forever looking at a battlemat trying to get their movement just right as to not take an AOO. It may not be complicated, but it does slow down the game.

Hmmm. When that starts to become a problem,my DM counts backwards from 10. The pain then goes away.

This movement does represent 6 or fewer seconds of effort on the part of the PC after all. If the player knows the basics of the rules decently, then he should not generally require more than 20-30 seconds to express what the PC is going to do, even taking into account player vs. PC competence issue.

I find that DMs that are relaxed about letting their mooks die from small little tactical errors help set the tone by being a good example of keeping the pace. If the DM can manipulate so many critters quickly, surely the player should be shamed if he cannot move one little PC quickly, yes?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is not as if the DM cannot houserule the Tumble skill. This is not a general problem with the implementation of AoOs, but a rather narrow issue that can be easily repaired.

Consider how high the Tumble skill must be to move through a phalanx consistently. Nor it is a small penalty if he fails -- the Rogue could fall prone in the middle of a pile of hostiles.

IMHO it is not a "problem" that a Rogue who is travelling with the likes of people who can magically Fly, Teleport, chat with divine beings, or singlehandedly kill 3 Ogres in less than than 6 seconds has this amazing ability. I do not see any need to distinguish between someone who can consistently hit DC 25+ and a mystical/magical ability.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

AoO add some tactical depth to combat. Without them, it's (kind of like what 2e combat was) Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots, but with spells.

 

[Henry]

such as "why don't I get an AoO against someone who is paralysed or affected by hold person?"

Surely by definition they are more vulnerable and less able to avoid an attack than someone getting a potion out, casting a spell or moving past you, but somehow they are immune to AoO?

Time. Taking an extra swing at someone who's being stupid in combat is 1/2 of a second; it takes at least 2 seconds to properly ram a sword into someone's gut in an auto-kill fashion, or slit their throat, or jam 'em on the head with the mallet so they die properly.

Other than that, By rights, they should allow it, but I suspect this is because of "fairness to players." If by simply being adjacent to someone helpless, you can kill 'em, It'd be all to easy to g around the battlefield whacking held victims.

Hmmm. When that starts to become a problem,my DM counts backwards from 10. The pain then goes away.

Me, too. If someone takes longer than 20 seconds to decide something, I count with outstretched hand on fingers "5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1" and after "1," they've lost action due to inaction. Players all need to be considerate of the rest of the palyers in the game, and this follows suit.

 

[hong]

Which Eric Noah would that be?

My Eric Noah, of course.


Hong "accept no substitutes" Ooi

 

[hong]

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

You are thinking too hard about fantasy. Stop thinking.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Me, too. If someone takes longer than 20 seconds to decide something, I count with outstretched hand on fingers "5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1" and after "1," they've lost action due to inaction. Players all need to be considerate of the rest of the palyers in the game, and this follows suit.

It is not even necessary to be so harsh.

We usually use 3x5 cards to track initiative order If the player is indecisive, the DM hands the card for that PC and says "You Delay", then goes on to the next card in the stack. The player may interject, after the completion of the actions for any character, by handing over the card to the DM and describing his action.

Players get used to the pace. And they learn to recognize that Delaying a bit is not a big penalty nor necessarily a bad tactical choice. In fact, players get used to voluntarily Delaying when they are feeling indecisive.