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

[Hussar]

Of course, I'm not suggesting the coup de grace - just that by logic the 1/2 second swing against the held person should be there just like the 1/2 second swing against the one provoking.

Hey, I know! Maybe an important element of drinking potions, moving past or casting spells is mooning the nearest fighters! Held people can't do this, but it is the act of mooning which provokes them so much that they can take a swing!

IOW there is a consistency breakdown with AoO as they currently stand. This is an advantage that the Spycraft model has.

A question. How often does held actually come up in your game? It so rarely occurs in mine that I have zero problem ignoring it. In the past year, well 49 sessions, I've had exactly one PC held in all that time. I don't think I've had a single NPC held that I can recall. At a guestimate, I would say that I average two combats per session, so that's about 100 combats with 1 time that the wonkiness of the AOO's rules vs held came up. Essentially, one per cent.

A rule which works 99% of the time is a good rule for me. I have no problems sticking my fingers in my ears and closing my eyes over the one per cent of the time it might be a bit strange. YMMV of course.

As far as it working in 2e, well, yup it did. Rock'em Sock'em robots with spells describes my experience pretty well. The fact that so many people don't have a problem with the rules points to the idea that perhaps 2e combat was less tactical than some would like.

Like I said, in 4e, I would LOVE to see a three page spread in the DMG for how to run rules light combats so people would stop complaining about this. If you don't like AOO's, remove them. Simply say no to any action which would draw an aoo. Too easy. This is how it was done in 2e, so, why not go back to that? Leave those of us who actually LIKE tactical combat to have a decent rule set that works the majority of the time.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Like I said, in 4e, I would LOVE to see a three page spread in the DMG for how to run rules light combats so people would stop complaining about this.

I agree, but think they should make the grid-oriented tactical rules (like AOO) options, rather than the default. (Yeah, I know -- every rule is optional -- but you know what I mean.)

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Each side gets an opportunity to do something in combat. A combatant can cast a spell, swing a sword, move or chug a potion. It really doesn't matter what you do as long as it doesn't take longer than the duration of a round.

That's how it worked in AD&D and it worked just fine.

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.

 

[pogre]

AoO really favor a grid and miniatures - [sarcasm] I'm sure WOTC is anxious to get rid of them [/sarcasm].

And, I still like 'em!

 

[Hussar]

I agree, but think they should make the grid-oriented tactical rules (like AOO) options, rather than the default. (Yeah, I know -- every rule is optional -- but you know what I mean.)

I'm thinking that it would be easier to make grid oriented the default. After all, it ties in nicely with DDM, making DDM a sweet little gateway game for new players. It also fits better with the design of the game. If you make grid based the default, then adventure design can take advantage of that. If you make free form the default, then there is no point in including any tactical assessments within a module. Grid form is far easier from a design point of view.

YMMV and all that of course.

 

[Thandren]

It takes a while to get used to it, but when you do it's rather helps people to not go running around carlessly in a fight. I think grapple is actually more anouying.

 

[boredgremlin]

I rarely use battlemats, and thus rarely use AoOs. Its not because of a hate of the mechanics, its because of a hate of battlemats. I play warhammer, and warcraft and other tactical games. I dont want it in my D&D. In my opinion D&D is more about story and roleplaying then drawing out a grid and playing warhammer with a different name.

in my games i use some of the AoO's, only for movement though. I do not force players to take feats to disarm, sunder or trip without suffering a AoO. I think the concept is good but they overdid it and took it from realistically portraying combat into limiting options, forcing players to either take a feat or simply bash away and hope for the best. I have been gaming long enough to know that anything that enhances options is good and anything that limits options is pure evil.... and AoO's too often fall into the latter category.

 

[solkan_uk]

They've actually been there since 1st edition, just hardly quantified.
Actually on retrospect I must say I'm not sure if that was an actual rule or not, but our group at least used to rule that if you tried to leave combat the monsters got a free attack on you.

And to all those that say D&D shouldn't use battlemats because it should be all about story, I actually think you're wrong. D&D is a combat based game, look through the books, what percentage do think is about combat? Including all the combat-based spells, feats and other abilities that have no use outside combat? If it's only 50% I'd be surprised...
If you want a story-based game there are far more interesting games on the market, and WotC know their strengths, it will remain at least partially a tactical combat game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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.

Nah. Earlier editions offered suggestions for using minis and grids (ground scales, etc), and PCs had actual facing, so they had real flanks and rears. (The 1E DMG went so far as to provide diagrams showing which squares or hexes would be considered flanks and rears.) There were combat modifiers for positioning. Anyone in the proper position could benefit from a rear attack, but the thief got the extra "backstab" damage bonus. (Actually, in the RC the thief needed complete surprise, rather than positioning. In 1E, the thief needed positioning, but also benefitted from surprise, if it was there. I didn't play 2E, much, so I don't know about that one.)

You could play the earlier editions like rock-em-sock-em robots if you wanted to, but there were plenty of options for getting tactical, too. You picked where you wanted to be on that continuum. I like that approach better than the 3.5 approach which basically assumes a grid and minis. I prefer more open options. Basically, I agree with Monte Cook's take on this (from his look at 3.5):

The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.

FWIW, I prefer classic D&D's approach to 3.0's, but I prefer 3.0's to 3.5's. As I said, earlier, I don't mind tactical grid-based rules being included as an option (in fact, I heartily approve), but I don't think they should be assumed and built into the system.

As far as WotC designing D&D to complement their miniatures efforts, well, I don't really care about that. I come at it as a gamer who plays D&D, not as a WotC stockholder. *shrugs*

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

They've actually been there since 1st edition, just hardly quantified.
Actually on retrospect I must say I'm not sure if that was an actual rule or not, but our group at least used to rule that if you tried to leave combat the monsters got a free attack on you.

Yes, 1E had a "breaking off from melee" rule:

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

I already mentioned the classic D&D approach (fighting withdrawl and retreat), so I won't repeat those.