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

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't see how swinging on a chandelier requires a "mother, may I" any more than an "I draw my sword and charge" or anything else. If you want to go that route, EVERYTHING requires the DM to say "Yes, you may."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

1)
3) Its pronounced "Fah-vah-RAH-rah-rah-rrrrrr-VEYyyyerrrr"

Off topic, but in no language that I'm aware of do you pronounce letters that come later in a sentence before the previous letters. "Farv" is one of my pet peeves and I cringe everytime I hear it. Somebody should shoot whoever taught that kid to pronounce his name.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see how swinging on a chandelier requires a "mother, may I" any more than an "I draw my sword and charge" or anything else. If you want to go that route, EVERYTHING requires the DM to say "Yes, you may."

The difference is that the player knows ahead of time that he can draw his sword, and knows the rules for the charge action. He doesn't know the rules for the "swing from a chandelier" action, and doesn't even know that the DM might ot might not allow it. To charge the bad guy, the player is reasonably sure that he just needs to say "I draw my sword and charge", to swing from the chandelier or other similar actions, he needs to come up with the magic password that the DM thinks is needed to do that, if he will allow it at all.

Every time you make an action dependent purely upon DM fiat, you make the system more opaque, and less accessible to the player. You push the player away from a situation in which he believes that he has some control over his destiny, you make him feel as though he has no (or fewer) choices except the "right" one the DM has in his head. In a role-playing game that is a bad situation to be in. Playing various iterations of "mother may I" is just thinly disguised railroading.

 

[Taraxia]

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?

Sure it has consequences. If you use up your AoOs for that round, then within the same round the dude you're fighting can now attempt to grapple, disarm, sunder or drink a potion without fear of AoO. The whole idea of one AoO per round deals with the idea of being "distracted" -- turn to lunge at the rogue running past you and now you're unprepared for when the fighter tries to wrestle you to the ground -- and folks with Combat Reflexes are supposed to be exactly the kind of quick-thinking combatants who can mitigate that distraction.

 

[ChristianW]

AOOs are another thing that bog down play. Sometimes I hate using a battlemat because players count out each and every square of movement, being careful to maneuver in such a way as to not provoke an AOO. It's like watching someone play chess. "If I don't take my finger off the mini, it hasn't moved!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Arguably people would be less likely to run by the defending chappie would be less likely to risk it if he was swinging 3ft of sharp steel around though

I think that is what zones of control can represent well - not so much the physical blocking, but the wariness that is engendered. Absolute zones of control wouldn't work well though, which is why I (for instance) allow opposed checks to overcome the prohibition - concentration, tumbling or BAB against their BAB for instance. (depending on circumstances)

OTOH, they'd be swinging their own weapons & wearing better armor.

The 3 attackers charge the warrior defending the Mage...one taking on the warrior head-on. The others use their weapons & orient their shields (if any) as best they can to avoid taking damage as they pass to get to the Mage.

Heck, get some people out on a battlefield- you can even demarcate barriers beyond which they cannot pass to represent walls- then see how long one person can hold off 3 charging attackers to defend the rear area.

Try this.

3-On-1 Rules:

Minimum # of players: 3 attackers, 1 defender, and a time judge for Round Robin.

Each of the 4 melee combatants get some kind of safety sword. Safety Swords are the only way to record "a hit."

The attackers have "2 Hits," the defender has an infinite amount. Killing the defender doesn't factor into the victory conditions.

Attackers must retreat 2 steps if they they take a hit, but may subsequently resume their charge immediately if they wish. They are "killed" if they take 2 hits, and leave the field of play.

Attackers are on the honor system as to whether they have been hit. As a rule of thumb, accidental "brushes" with a weapon do not count as a hit, but any solid contact with a weapon counts as a hit, even if its from one attacker to another.

Participants may use whatever they want to get past or prevent passage of another player, but may not strike the head, nor can they strike with the intent to do ACTUAL harm- no punching or kicking permitted, but body blocks, grabs and trips are allowed.

Victory conditions:

Attackers must get one of their number past the defender to the rear area.

Defender must kill all 3 attackers to beat the Attackers

Round Robin

Each player takes a turn as the defender. The defender who defends his rear area for the longest period of time is considered to be the top defender.

 

[Numion]

By hard-coding the AoO rules players gain more control over the game. They can design their characters with Tumble or other abilities to specifically get around situations like this, or, if using minis and a mat, make their own decisions on how best to fight.

Players making their own decisions on how best to fight? The horror! Yes .. we must remove that from 4E

 

[Montague68]

The difference is that the player knows ahead of time that he can draw his sword, and knows the rules for the charge action. He doesn't know the rules for the "swing from a chandelier" action, and doesn't even know that the DM might ot might not allow it.

Oh no - not uncertainty! GOD FORBID we ever put the player in a situation where he has to actually THINK.

 

[Presto2112]

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).

Personally, I'm fine with AoO's as is. It's the Grapple rules that I'd love to see get an overhaul.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Oh no - not uncertainty! GOD FORBID we ever put the player in a situation where he has to actually THINK.

Excuse me? What Storm Raven seems to be saying is that the "uncertainty" isn't begging thought; rather, it's begging mind-reading. The "Mother, may I?" scenario actually discourages thought, because there's no way for the player to think it through, since he doesn't know the variables and therefore has no ability to weigh the criteria for success.

Incidentally, there is at least a theoretical rules approach to swinging on a chandelier; using the Jump and/or Climb mechanics.