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

[JRRNeiklot]

No it didn't. You had fighters come up and bash at each other. No maneuvering, no flanking, and backstabbing was vague and ambiguous with lots of "mother may I" rulings. Ultimately, it wasn't nearly as satisfying as 3E combat is right now. Flanking, tumbling, bull-rushing, casting on the defensive, worrying about the monster's reach, deliberately provoking attacks of opportunities to help your friends and allies. All that is good and as far as I'm concerned a vast improvement over 1e/2e/BD&D combat.

Wrong.

Flank attacks negate the shield bonus, rear flanks negate shield and dex bonus, and rear attacks negate shield and dex bonus, as well as granting the attacker a +2 to hit. IMO, it beats 3es you take 10d6 damage because there is a squirrel on the other side of you, hands down.

 

[Psion]

I like this because it provides the basic concept, it's straightforward, and it's easy to apply with or without minis/battlemap

I find AoOs easy to apply without minis and battlemats. I find engaging new targets during combat and appying area effects more needful of minis/battlemats than AoOs.

It's not exactly a difficult determination as to whether you are not in melee. The AoOs are already spelled out as far as that goes. As for AoOs during movement, it's rather easily managed by announcing intent and excercising GM judgement. You want to rush past the guards and out the door, the result should be obvious.

 

[Storm Raven]

Wrong.

Flank attacks negate the shield bonus, rear flanks negate shield and dex bonus, and rear attacks negate shield and dex bonus, as well as granting the attacker a +2 to hit. IMO, it beats 3es you take 10d6 damage because there is a squirrel on the other side of you, hands down.

No, he's right, but not in the way you think.

Because there was no penalty for movement, and no limitations on where you could go, the "maneuvering" consisted of simply moving to the rear of your opponent and making a rear attack, negating any shield or Dexterity bonuses. Because ther ewas nothing wrong with moving around like that, anyone who didn't was just being foolish. So, everyone, on their action, just moves around their opponent to his "back", and then makes their attacks.

You may as well never carry a shield, because your opponent will just move to where it isn't. 1e combat was a lot of things, but it is hard to deny it was goofy.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

So, everyone, on their action, just moves around their opponent to his "back", and then makes their attacks.

Such an approach assumes a strict my-turn, your-turn flow to combat with no room for (or application of) common sense. I think classic D&D handled movement within melee better than AD&D, but even in AD&D I'd never have allowed the "maneuver" you describe (i.e. "my turn: I run around behind you and attack while you stand still waiting for your turn"). I can't believe anyone would've. I agree with what Robert Fisher says about "dynamic combat" on his site (and think it's common sense which applies to any edition).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

but even in AD&D I'd never have allowed the "maneuver" you describe (i.e. "my turn: I run around behind you and attack while you stand still waiting for your turn"). I can't believe anyone would've.

That's a house rule.

And yes, there were plenty of DMs who not only would have allowed the maneuver, but did.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No, he's right, but not in the way you think.

Because there was no penalty for movement, and no limitations on where you could go, the "maneuvering" consisted of simply moving to the rear of your opponent and making a rear attack, negating any shield or Dexterity bonuses. Because ther ewas nothing wrong with moving around like that, anyone who didn't was just being foolish. So, everyone, on their action, just moves around their opponent to his "back", and then makes their attacks.

You may as well never carry a shield, because your opponent will just move to where it isn't. 1e combat was a lot of things, but it is hard to deny it was goofy.

Except for the fact that you can't attack after moving over 10 feet. You might be able to do this in a one on one fight, but if there are,say, 3 orcs, moving behind one will likely take more than 10 feet and you'd not get an attack.



OOO
F

The fighter (F) can't move behind either orc and still attack, though he can move to the front flank of either of the orcs on the outside.

Grrrr. The F is supposed to be in the center, under the middle O. I suck at formatting.

 

[Montague68]

That's a house rule.

And yes, there were plenty of DMs who not only would have allowed the maneuver, but did.

I'm beginning to wonder if people here actually played the same game I did.

From the DMG, page 61:

"4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:

A. Avoid engagement (Flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if possible.
B. Attempt to parley.
C. Await action by other party.
D. Discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn undead.
E. Close to striking range, or charge.
F. Set weapons against possible opponent charge
G. Strike blows with weapons to kill or subdue.
H. Grapple or Hold.

5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative (As per A through H above)

6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initiative, and action until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue, or death of one or both parties"

When it came to combat options with regards to the enemy, that was it. You could do one of the above, nothing else. There was no "I tiptoe around the Orc that just smacked me and attack him from behind". You were in melee - that sort of stuff was already figured in. More Gary, DMG page 61:

"So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an enemy's guard presents itself."

The only time you were allowed flanking and rear attacks was when the defender was unaware or there were multiple attackers. Period.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Except for the fact that you can't attack after moving over 10 feet. You might be able to do this in a one on one fight, but if there are,say, 3 orcs, moving behind one will likely take more than 10 feet and you'd not get an attack.

What edition of the game is this rule found in? Because I know of a rule in 3.5 that says you do get an attack after a move of up to your move speed. For example if your speed is 30 feet you can move 30 feet and then attack. Not full attack, sure, but a single attack nonetheless.

 

[Driddle]

I'm so disappointed that about half the responses to this thread are so totally off about interpreting the rules on Attacks of Opportunity. Totally wrong-headed.

That aside, however, two of you guys -- and you know who you are, so I won't name names -- are letting your emotions get the better of you and need to calm it down. Act more like the 20th level players we know you are.

 

[Campbell]

I'm so disappointed that about half the responses to this thread are so totally off about interpreting the rules on Attacks of Opportunity. Totally wrong-headed.

I'm not sure how wrong-headed they are. It seems like you're looking for a play experience that is radically different then the one the current incarnation of D&D provides. That's all right, but it's a completely reasonable assumption that a significant portion of those who play D&D 3.x might have taken a measured look at the current edition of D&D and chosen to play it because it offered a play experience that is quite different from other roleplaying games. I consider myself one such individual.

As far as Attacks of Oppurtunity go, I quite like how they work out in gameplay, even if some elements of the rules involving them have flawed executions. D&D's tactical combat is part of the reason I choose to use it above other roleplaying games for the games I run, and Attacks of Oppurtunity are part and parcel of this. It helps scratch my tactical, or subtactical if you prefer, itch and I haven't found tactical combat to be a detriment to any other areas of my games. In my experience Attacks of Oppurtunity and other elements of tactical combat have enhanced the drama of combat, the effect of which can often have a significant impact on future plot developments, enriching my game both in and out of combat. I also have very little experience with Attacks of Opputunity stopping players dead in their tracks. Your mileage may vary of cource. As always it may be possible that I am an abomination, but I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

Take these words from a HEROphile with a grain of salt.