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

[fusangite]

Rolling initiative every round is the only way to give any shred of realism to a combat.

If realism is the goal, then obviously you must have serious problems with AC and HP mechanics. If you're looking for combat realism rather than cartoonish hyper-balance, another game system may be the way to go.

People just don't act in ordered turns in battle - by its very nature a disorderly and chaotic thing - so to have them do so in the game is, to me, too great a sacrifice of realism.

Whereas making it impossible to sever limbs or organs using normal non-magical weapons is not?

 

[fusangite]

It's really not that hard if you actually use a grid and minis.

That was the point I was making. I would like to go back to a combat system where a grid and minis are optional because, right now, they are a requirement. Look at the Mutants & Masterminds system -- there, you can use minis or not, depending on your preference. I'd like to see that flexibility restored to D&D.

It's hard for me to think up an AoO-less system that still works the way 3.5 combat does that doesn't involve everyone scurrying right past the fighters and killing the mages *or* the fighters standing there doing nothing but guarding the mages. Either one makes the game more boring.

It's funny but I didn't find combat more boring in AD&D. Why? Because it went way faster because you didn't need to plot everything out so precisely. Similarly, I don't find Mutants and Masterminds combat less fun because there is a sense of dramatic flow that gets lost in the overly geometric way D&D now works.

 

[zoroaster100]

I like Attacks of Opportunity. I think they are essential for combat strategy to be part of the game.

 

[jcfiala]

That was the point I was making. I would like to go back to a combat system where a grid and minis are optional because, right now, they are a requirement. Look at the Mutants & Masterminds system -- there, you can use minis or not, depending on your preference. I'd like to see that flexibility restored to D&D.

I've played several times without minis. You just have to describe your movement a little more - instead of saying "I walk over to second orc and attack him", you say "I walk over to the orc that Kalish is attacking, but I make sure to not walk right past the other one." It requires a little more thought by the DM - sometimes scratch paper is useful to roughly plot where people are - but it works well enough.

 

[fusangite]

I've played several times without minis. You just have to describe your movement a little more - instead of saying "I walk over to second orc and attack him", you say "I walk over to the orc that Kalish is attacking, but I make sure to not walk right past the other one." It requires a little more thought by the DM - sometimes scratch paper is useful to roughly plot where people are - but it works well enough.

Yes. But some GM's can't keep it all in their head and absolutely have to diagram the situation precisely on graph paper to get AoOs right because they lack geometric intuition. I'm one of those GMs and would like a set of rules where I didn't have to do this.

You are fortunate that your GM is good at geometry and this stuff isn't a problem. But I know I'm not alone in having trouble with this; hence the length of this thread.

 

[fusangite]

I like Attacks of Opportunity. I think they are essential for combat strategy to be part of the game.

Are you saying combat strategy wasn't part of the game before 3E?

 

[Storm Raven]

Are you saying combat strategy wasn't part of the game before 3E?

No, it wasn't to any great extent. Except for the cumbersome declaring actions stuff, which was tedious and even more time consuming than anything that comes up in 3e, combat was basically just a way for bags of hit points to attrit each other to zero.

 

[jcfiala]

Yes. But some GM's can't keep it all in their head and absolutely have to diagram the situation precisely on graph paper to get AoOs right because they lack geometric intuition. I'm one of those GMs and would like a set of rules where I didn't have to do this.

You are fortunate that your GM is good at geometry and this stuff isn't a problem. But I know I'm not alone in having trouble with this; hence the length of this thread.

Geometry nothing. It's a general idea of where the characters are. He doesn't keep track of exactly where everyone is, he just keeps a general idea of where people are.

After all, even without Attack of Opportunity, if you're doing mapless combat, how do you figure who gets hit with the fireball? With the lightning bolt? Either you have a general idea of where everyone is, you use a map, or it's GM Fiat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Are you saying combat strategy wasn't part of the game before 3E?

Sometimes not. If the mooks are remarkably efficient at always preventing the heroes from attacking the leaders in the back and always fight to the death, then the tactical options can become pretty monotonous.

It is no longer difficult to go toe-to-toe with the leader...if I am willing to pay the price. AoOs and/or risking being flanked are often part of the price.

I find the tactical options in 3e to be vast compared to my experiences in previous editions. What makes it particularly pleasurable is that there are many different good choices, instead of what felt like a checklist of bad choices to avoid.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you want realism, there are way easier ways to give the game that feel. Try killing cumulative hit points, bringing hit locations for damage, making armour work as DR instead of modifying to-hit probabilities, etc.

Whoo-hoo! Runequest 2! Probably still my favourite game system ever, and it *felt* really realistic.