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

[Psion]

AOOs should stay.

The idea of 4E should be discarded.

I approve this message.

 

[Glyfair]

If you don't want to use them with 3e, just go back to the 1e/2e rule for a lot of things that now draw AoOs and simply rule that you cannot do them at all while in melee.

Don't forget that while some things were disallowed, other things drew attacks of opportunity (it just wasn't called that then).

I'm for simplifying or at least clarifying a lot of the AoO issues we have now. The D&D miniatures system handles them reasonably well, although it would need to be more complex than that (because there are more things you want to do in standard D&D than the miniatures game).

 

[Rothe]

Kept. They are as old as wargaming itself. The concept is often called by other names such as zone of control.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Don't forget that while some things were disallowed, other things drew attacks of opportunity (it just wasn't called that then).

I agree; there were AAO in the previous editions, they just weren't called that, and the rules for handling them were quite a bit simpler. I'd prefer a return to that approach, with less reliance on minis and battlemats than is currently built into the system. Right now, 3.5 rules largely assume minis and battlemat. I'd rather the rules assume no minis and battlemat; more detailed rules for minis could be provided as a "tactical option." In other words, have the simpler approach as the default, and add detail as an option -- if you're tweaking a system, it's easier to add than to remove, IMO.

 

[Glyfair]

I agree; there were AAO in the previous editions, they just weren't called that, and the rules for handling them were quite a bit simpler.

And, as I'm sure many here realize, the complexity of AoD is the trade off because of 3E's design philosophy. The main contrast between 3E and earlier editions has always been options.

3E was specifically designed to open up your options. It doesn't say "you can't be a dwarf wizard." In many cases, it's a trade off to gain options, but gain complexity. Old editions mostly said "you can't cast magic-user spells and wear armor." 3E says, you can, but you have a chance of failing. This adds an additional rule to deal with.

In the specific case of AoD, earlier editions got away with a simpler system because they simply disallowed many of the things that draw attacks now.

AD&D - you can't drink potions in combat
3E - you can, but they'll get a free attack on you.

AD&D - you can't cast spells in combat
3E - you can, but they'll get an attack on you

Neither option is wrong, but they are different approaches. When WotC was designing 3E the players were telling them they were tired of having things limited, and wanted more options. So, 3E was designed to allow those options, but often at a cost (IIRC, dwarf arcane casters originally had a built in spell failure chance from early comments from the designers).

 

[Ambrus]

Of course, there is some weird illogic in the idea that if I'm a big warrior battling a pair of monsters that are trying to tear my face off, and suddenly a little monster tries to run behind me, that I would suddenly spin around and hack at him

I've played in LARPs with boffo weapons before and I've seen this actually occur for real. Usually, the player was so focused on the big monster(s) in front of him that he wouldn't notice if someone rushed past behind him but would nonetheless hit him by accident on the back-swing. It led to some amusing "war" stories after the fact.

 

[jcfiala]

I'm fond of AoO myself - the generally make sense to me, and the don't take that much more time in combat, I think.

 

[Khairn]

I hope AoO's stay.

It's been very easy for my gaming group to pick up, has added a lot of fun to our game and is a great way of simulating tactical combat without having to worry about facing etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In the specific case of AoD, earlier editions got away with a simpler system because they simply disallowed many of the things that draw attacks now.

AD&D - you can't drink potions in combat
3E - you can, but they'll get a free attack on you.

I'm not sure where you're getting the restriction against drinking a potion in combat in AD&D. In 1E, drinking a potion takes 1 segment, and it takes 2-5 segments for the potion to take effect. Handling the drinking of a potion in combat is just a matter of initiative and standard combat penalties. For example, if you're in melee and you want to get out a potion, uncork it, and drink it, you're probably not going to be able to attack, move a lot, etc. Depending on where the potion is (e.g. backpack), you might lose Dex bonus to AC, shield bonus, etc. You're pretty likely to get whacked -- but you're free to attempt it.

AD&D - you can't cast spells in combat
3E - you can, but they'll get an attack on you

Actually, AD&D allowed you to cast spells in combat, it was just difficult, because if you were hit before your spell went off (depending on your initiative segment and casting time) you lost the spell. See pg 65 of the 1E DMG, under "Spell Casting During Melee."

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I like AoOs and hope they stay. That doesn't mean that the current incarnation is the end-all/be-all. There is certainly room for improvement.

Personally, I'd like to see a Concentration check upon a successful AoO, and a failure means the action isn't completed. For example, you try to rush past the ogre to get at the mage, the ogre smacks you with his AoO, and your movement stops where he hit you.

IME, the potential damage from AoOs doesn't scale well with character level.