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

[Lanefan]

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. Thinking fast with AOO should be encouraged. Frankly the AOO rules are intitutively obvious to even a casual observer.

The difference, of course, is there's usually loads of time for the PC's to word a wish, while combat happens in mere seconds, or minutes occasionally. Though my game doesn't use AoO's (it started before 3e even existed) I allow players a bit of time to decide moves etc., to attempt to reflect the idea that the PC's are far more experienced in such things than their players. That said, if the party is low level, they get much less time to decide, as the PC's are less experienced.

Lanefan

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, it may or may not be realistic that going unconscious/helpless provokes an AoO but it would make the game less fun to play that way unless you completely rewrote the rules for dying. Purely for the sake of game play we want our heroes have a reasonable chance of dropping unconscious and still surviving long enough to be rescued by an ally.

 

[Mercule]

Nah, in campaigns I've been in, AoOs cause more trouble. Not because players don't know when they occur, but because they desperately loop and otherwise avoid actions that provoke AoOs. Thinking takes time. Answering the CL/M/S/W question takes less than three seconds.

We made the table rule that there's no precounting of squares and once you move it, it's moved. Also, if you start to bore the GM, you lose your turn. For the latter, there's actually quite a bit of leeway, but it's there for those occasions when people are totally unable to come up with something and unwilling to say "I hold".

Amazingly enough, within a couple of sessions every single player, including the girlfriend who'd never played before, had AoOs down pretty well. Sure, there are still occasional questions, but it really flows pretty smoothly.

I wish magic use was as well understood by the players. Why can't they remember that the bonus cap for healing spells = spell level * 5? And why is it so hard to remember that the save DC is 11 + spell level + stat bonus (and written on their sheet, too)? Those are the sort of thing that bug me when they're asked every session at least once.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Of course, I'm not suggesting the coup de grace - just that by logic the 1/2 second swing against the held person should be there just like the 1/2 second swing against the one provoking.

Hey, I know! Maybe an important element of drinking potions, moving past or casting spells is mooning the nearest fighters! Held people can't do this, but it is the act of mooning which provokes them so much that they can take a swing!

IOW there is a consistency breakdown with AoO as they currently stand. This is an advantage that the Spycraft model has.

 

[Driddle]

I don't get the love for attacks of opportunity. Seems like so much complexity for the sake of complexity.

 

[Valesin]

I don't get the hostility vs. AoOs. They are really quite simple and learned by even semi-experienced gamers pretty quickly. I refuse to believe that my gaming group is THAT much smarter than the typical gamer, although they would like to think so.

Much greater realism at the cost of very simple mechanics. What's to hate?

 

[Numion]

I don't get the love for attacks of opportunity. Seems like so much complexity for the sake of complexity.

I get the love for attacks of opportunity. Encourages team play, and makes players think about their actions.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't get the love for attacks of opportunity. Seems like so much complexity for the sake of complexity.

Love is too strong a word; more like "necessary evil".

My question to all those Anti-AoOers: What do YOU replace it with? Lets assume for 10 seconds that two people squaring off in melee can't do certain things (grab and drink a potion, cast a spell, moon the other swordsman, etc) because its not fair/not realistic/a holy bovine, etc. How do you handle it?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

What do YOU replace it with?

If I'm playing 3E, I use AoO. That said, I prefer other approaches. For example, in B/X (Moldvay/Cook 1981), meleed opponents may only move defensively. Defensive movement is a "fighting withdrawl" (up to 1/2 normal movement rate), or a retreat (greater than 1/2 normal movement rate). If you retreat, your enemy gets a +2 to hit, you can't attack, and you lose any shield bonus. C&C uses a very similar system.

I like this because it provides the basic concept, it's straightforward, and it's easy to apply with or without minis/battlemap -- no counting squares and all that. Other AoO situations are handled by applying common sense (e.g. if you try to get out and drink a potion while in melee, you're more likely to get hit).

I don't think AoO are a necessary evil because I don't think the AoO rules are necessary. I don't hate them -- they work okay. But I don't think they're critical, and they contribute to the "tactical miniatures game" feel of 3E combat. That can be a good thing, if that's what you're going for. But it isn't really necessary. I don't even think it's more "realistic."

 

[ChristianW]

My question to all those Anti-AoOers: What do YOU replace it with? Lets assume for 10 seconds that two people squaring off in melee can't do certain things (grab and drink a potion, cast a spell, moon the other swordsman, etc) because its not fair/not realistic/a holy bovine, etc. How do you handle it?

Each side gets an opportunity to do something in combat. A combatant can cast a spell, swing a sword, move or chug a potion. It really doesn't matter what you do as long as it doesn't take longer than the duration of a round.

That's how it worked in AD&D and it worked just fine.