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

[Glyfair]

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."

Well, it has been a while since I've played AD&D (hmmmm..almost qualifies as decades). The details I'm rusty on.

 

[Wiseblood]

The reasoning for this is so a fighter can "hold the line" against multiple foes. By the laws of grid-based combat, if a fighter is holding the line against three charging foes (each wants to get past him to get to the mage who fireballed them a round ago) The fighter could only block one (the one he's litterally standing in front of) but the other two get a clear pass.

M = Mage
F = Fighter 1
1, 2, 3 = Rival Fighters
X = Open Square

X X M X X
X X X X X
X X F X X
X X X X X
X 1 2 3 X

2 is dead blocked, 1 and 3 are going to make mage-kabobs. However, that AoO makes fighter 1 (or 3, or both if he has combat reflexes) think twice about it. F is going to get at least one AoO (which could be a crit, or just a solid hit) and dead block 2 (unless 2 overruns, which is something else entirely). So lets say he AoOs 3, stops 2, and lets one 1. He didn't drop 3 with his AoO, but 3 is now more messed up than normal. The mage still is screwed, but maybe his shocking grasp can finish off 3...

Now, in my scenario (and your rogue/flanker one) there are still plenty of ways to avoid F's AoO or minimize it. Perhaps 3 has tumble; DC 15 tumble gets you past F's threat zone. 2 could pull a 25 tumble and avoid F also. Or they could take the first and last rows (all Xs on the chart), which will prevent the AoO, but foils a charge attempt (no longer a straight line). Or 1 and 3 can use mobility to have the AoO miss. There are plenty of options for those who don't wish to provoke AoOs, but they require some investment (skills, feat, or movement).

In the case of holding the line chances are that you are holding your attack until someone gets close enought to hit.

Tumble and mobility are ways around AoO's . Picture this: Sir. Galahad moving past you in armor vs. Some fool cartwheeling by AT THE SAME SPEED. IMO these just slow down combat in a way that just doesn't make sense. I could Understand AoO's if you were not already engaged melee and threatened.

And in response Numion

He's a trained fighter what am I chopped liver heck I might even be higher level.
I have not thrown caution to the wind that is my movement rate for one round. I noticed that you made an example of fighter X moving to attack another and in that case I had somehow let my guard down how is that any different from the AoO?

Allow me to fill in the blanks on the study of medieval battles. These battles were not chivalrous duels. In many cases one side was outnumbered. Nor, did they stand in neat lines and fight. The masses of troops collided and merged and those in the melee often found that an enemy had inadvertantly presented his back. Chances are, that these fellows who were cut down never saw it coming. They were not, as you imply,running away.

In D&D it is assumed that during a full round of combat that there are numerous things goin on as opponents attampt to create an opening for an attack. It is more of a leap for me to believe that you can battle one guy and only get one swing, because you are not 6th level. It amazes me that your prowess jumps the next round. If you have combat reflexes you could swing at four other guys that moved through squares behind you.

 

[Woas]

I like 'em. Since I really started my serious D&D gaming career with 3rd Edition the AoO has always been just part of the game. I never have any problems with them.

 

[Jupp]

The reasoning for this is so a fighter can "hold the line" against multiple foes.

One of the better arguments in this thread, and its one of the main reasons I'd like to see AoO in 4e as well. What way, except using magic, is there to prevent the oponent to just rush by and make kebab out of the party mage if the fighters do not have a way to prevent the enemy from breaking the battle line? It adds nice elements of tactic to the combat without complicating things too much. There are more complicated elements in 3E that slow down combat than AoO, and those parts should perhaps be reworked /looked at before AoO are being touched

Edit: We use AoO since 2e and even implemented it into C&C and no one ever thought that AoO are a bad thing so far.

 

[Squire James]

The AD&D rules for preventing spellcasting were as complicated (or more so) than today's AoO's in my opinion. The following comprises my experience as DM with this rule, so obviously Your Milage May Vary.

My reading of the rule was as follows: if someone with a weapon strikes a spell-caster before he finishes a spell, the caster loses the spell and cannot attempt another one that round. Some extended that to mean the weapon had to hit WHILE casting the spell, but I can see the BEFORE rule sticking in a rules-set without the Delay action (it is presumed those who would of hit early will await his opportunity to disrupt a spell).

Casting times of spells were usually 1 segment per spell level, and each weapon type had a Speed Factor which determined roughly how many segments it took to effectively use it. So the heavier the weapon used by the foe, the bigger the spell the spell-caster could usually eke out before being attacked. A dagger was almost certain to stop most spellcasting, longswords (being the Ultimate Weapon until the katana rules sprouted somewhere) were very good, but a two-handed sword pretty much acted at the end of the round.

There were initiative factors and a boatload of optional rules changing this basic system. Rules lawyers had a field day trying to convince the poor DM to adopt a particular optional or house rule. I finally settled on an initiative system where initiative was rolled on 1d10, minus Dex reaction bonus, plus weapon speed factor or casting time. Thus, the players had to declare intended action ahead of time (I allowed them to change their mind, but only if they still used the weapon or spell they declared) before rolling initiative.

It worked well at the time, but what a cumbersome system!

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Keep them. Our group hasn't had that many problems with them.

 

[comrade raoul]

The problems with AoOs in my opinion are the 5-ft. step and the special attacks like disarming, tripping, and grappling.

I would change the 5-ft. step so that you cannot take it before your action. You can try to attack then back up, but you can't back up and cast a spell or shoot an arrow.

Appealing at first blush, but it wouldn't work, because characters really need the option to take their step before they make a melee full attack. If Smith and Jones are fighters, Smith has the initiative, and Smith begins his action adjacent to Jones, he can make a melee attack and then step back, leaving Jones in trouble -- if he wants to attack Smith in melee, he has to (presumably) use a move action to approach Smith, get just one attack, and leave Smith in a position to fully retailiate and then step back, thereby repeating the process.

A potentially better approach to five-foot steps is to require that all five-foot steps be a special move action (you spend a move action, avoid all attacks of opportunity, but move only five feet) and also characters take a five-foot step for free as part of a full-attack action with a melee weapon. (This also eliminates the need for a special full-round withdraw action.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It worked well at the time, but what a cumbersome system!

I agree that the 1E AD&D initiative system is confusing and cumbersome, BtB. I prefer the approach used in classic D&D (i.e. B/X).

 

[Nebulous]

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.

I sort of like the rule where if you do something to draw an AoO, fine, but you're considered flat-footed and vulnerable until your next turn. I'm sort of on the fence about AoO. They can be cool sometimes, but a real pain in the butt others.

 

[Kormydigar]

Attacks of Opportunity. Boy-howdy, what a concept.

Do you think AoO needs to be kept or discarded when the next iteration of DnD is developed?

I think the existing AOO rules need to be scrapped, but the concept should be retained. While being frozen in time because its not your turn really sucks, it is a little ridiculous that a character can move a full move, make an attack, and still make multiple attacks of opportunity (provided the individual has Combat Reflexes) while normally that character could only make one attack if more than a five foot step was taken.

I like the idea of limiting AOO's to those who choose to wait on thier turn. There should be a possible benefit for not charging gung -ho into every encounter. Another thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is what the rules say provokes an AOO and more importantly what does not. I understand that running through a melee will provoke, but lets say you are a fighter with C.Reflexes in melee with a big nasty opponent. During the round, you make 3 AOO's against enemies running by you. Turning your attention away from your melee opponent 3 times has NO concequences for you whatsoever yet the allies trying to slip past an opponent commited in full attack action melee are the ones making the grave tactical mistake?