Can PC's calculate with AoO's?

[Omegium]

In a couple of WotC examples PC's are calculating with aoo's. In the delay action example, eg, lidda lays she is going to move through the treathened area of the monster, because it has already spent its aoo on tordek.
Is this metagaming? The combat is not done in turns, it is just easier to manage. AoO's where included to improve the fluency of combat, but IRL there is nothing like an aoo, you just attack because you had the change. Should a PC be allowed to calculate with this, and eg delay until the monster has spend its aoo on another pc?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Oh boy you are opening up a can o'wiorms with this one.

I think that the can consider AoO when making decisions. The main reason is that if the creature just made an AoO, it isn't going to be able to attack again that quickly. At least that's how a character would look at it IMHO.

Plus the player will rarely know if the foe has combat reflexes, which will get the character smacked if it does provoke an AoO because they think the foe has used all it's AoO's for the round.

--Player-Freiendly Spikey

 

[Artoomis]

The bottom line is that these are tactical decisions made by the player with knowledge of the rules.

Nothing wrong with that, and numerous justifications can be found - "oh, I see he is curently overextended from taking his attack, so I'll just scoot past him before he can recover."

The main thing is to keep some aspect of role playing in there. If the character is a coward, then he STILL shouldn't run past - after all, there is alwys SOME risk (like he might have multiple AoO's from a feat, or something).

What I'm trying to say is that we have a game system with rules - you should not be penalized for following the rules and knowing how they work. Some justification can always be found, do just let it go and have fun!

 

[Galfridus]

IMO, these kinds of rules are simply the 3E analog to the kind of tactical knowledge that the characters would actually use if the world were "real" and not being simulated by a ruleset.

Penalizing a player for using this rule, IMO, would be like penalizing an archer for stepping forward 10 feet before firing because it puts him in a better range increment. In a "real" fantasy world it wouldn't work like that, but in 3E it does.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Is this metagaming? The combat is not done in turns, it is just easier to manage. AoO's where included to improve the fluency of combat, but IRL there is nothing like an aoo, you just attack because you had the change. Should a PC be allowed to calculate with this, and eg delay until the monster has spend its aoo on another pc?

In real life this happens all the time:
--Sending half a platoon to rush a machine gun nest while the rest lay down covering fire instead of just sending in one guy with a grenade at a time.
--Two defenders tackling the Heisman trophy winner at the same time instead each trying a solo open field tackle.
--Ditto soccer.

It is often true that one person may attempt something and fail, but provide a temporary distraction that allows someone else to succeed.

The only metagaming is if the player "knows" this Orc will not have Combat Reflexes. That is easy to solve as a DM.

 

[graydoom]

I don't see any problem with PCs using infomation like this... it is information that the characters would know. Remember, also, that all the action in a round is happening at once... so the character sees opponent A busy attacking PC B (who tried to run past opponent A) and the character thus thinks "Hmmm, opponent A is busy with PC B, time for me to run past."
Most stuff like this is simple tactics that any PC who has managed to survive would have picked up.
I think Galfridus and the rest have said this better than I did.

 

[Grendel]

Remember a round is 6 seconds. not 6 seconds per participant. So even though each player takes their turn they are actually moving simultaniously.

Therefore in the meta-game one person absorbs an attack of oppertunity, and the other gets through. The characters percption of events will be entirely differnt, one character rushes through drawing the opponents attention, the second character spots and opening and rushes through a split second later.

Bottom line, even meta-gaming is reasonable in certain situations. Even the archer example and range, how many of us can judge 100' and get into optimum range. probably none, however how many of us can gauge how accurate they will be attempting to hit a target at a given range, proably everyone.

I used to worry about meta-gaming all the time, however now, i look at it like game physics. it is nearly impossible to describe the physics of a combat or spell, but it isn't nessisary because there is a game mechanic that translates it.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, using the basic rules is not metagaming.

Using information the character would be unable to know, like using a lightning based attack on a fire resistant monster, altho he usually uses fire based attacks all the time, would be metagaming. Or calculating the optimum power attack against the AC of a creature with your palm pilot, altho the character has never seen a creature like this before and does only know about its AC, because of his monster manual database on said palm pilot, would be metagaming.

The combat rules are just a player's view of the character's perception to make decisions easier, like Grendel said.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cullain]

In a couple of WotC examples PC's are calculating with aoo's. In the delay action example, eg, lidda lays she is going to move through the treathened area of the monster, because it has already spent its aoo on tordek.
Is this metagaming? The combat is not done in turns, it is just easier to manage. AoO's where included to improve the fluency of combat, but IRL there is nothing like an aoo, you just attack because you had the change. Should a PC be allowed to calculate with this, and eg delay until the monster has spend its aoo on another pc?

As others have said, the characters would not know what an attack of opportunity was, but they'd recognize when an opponent has overextended, and it's okay to go.

It would be metagaming if the player said 'bob the dm never gives NPCs combat reflexes', so I'll charge through now with no fear.

Cullain

 

[med stud]

Does someone know if you can stop a AoO from taking place? IMC when a horde of weak creatures are to defeat the PCs, they let one walk in and out of a PCs threatened zone with full defense up (the +4 AC, no attack), making him/her attack.

When the PC has made his/her AoO, the other creatures tries to initiate a grapple.

Is this legal?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does someone know if you can stop a AoO from taking place?

An AoO is an option, not an obligation.

Otherwise you'd be required to punch your cleric when he tried to heal you - he's casting a spell in your threatened zone!

Anyone is more than welcome to forego an opportunity if they expect a better one might be coming along.

As a DM, I always phrase it to my players "You can make an AoO, if you wish"... usually, of course, they take me up on the offer, but occasionally they choose not to.

The occasion I remember was an assault on a kobold lair. When they entered the guardhouse at the entrance, there were a few kobolds inside - a couple with bows, one standing near a gong.

All three were in the threatened zone of the first fighter through the door.

One of them went to shoot the fighter with his bow. I offered an AoO - the fighter declined.

When another one went to ring the gong... then he took his AoO.

I suppose you could come up with a custom spell or magic item - like Nethack's "Ring of Aggravate Monster", maybe - that forced people to attack you at any opportunity... it'd be good for your super-high AC Mobility damage sponge, maybe, so he can tie up all the opponents' attacks while everyone else stood back with spells or ranged weapons...

... but otherwise, AoOs are always optional.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Remember a round is 6 seconds. not 6 seconds per participant. So even though each player takes their turn they are actually moving simultaniously.

Therefore in the meta-game one person absorbs an attack of oppertunity, and the other gets through. The characters percption of events will be entirely differnt, one character rushes through drawing the opponents attention, the second character spots and opening and rushes through a split second later.

Although this simultaneous concept does not explain situations like the Cleric next to the Giant moves away 10 feet to draw an AoO, then he moves back 10 feet and heals the Druid lying in a pool of blood next to the Giant.

In real combat, regardless of some people's opinions of "attempts to feint the Giant and get him off balance", this one really is solely due to the rules and not really based on any real perception of the character. The player knows this "tactic" has a high percentage chance of success (due to high hit points on the part of the Cleric), but from a character perspective, it is a low percentage tactic (and yes, we already went through a long thread on the Giant could trip or grapple, etc., that really does not change the metagaming aspect of the tactic).

Bottom line, even meta-gaming is reasonable in certain situations. Even the archer example and range, how many of us can judge 100' and get into optimum range. probably none, however how many of us can gauge how accurate they will be attempting to hit a target at a given range, proably everyone.

But, it can still be annoying to a DM.

Last Sunday, it was our party archer's turn and I asked him, "Ok, what are you doing?". His response: "Wait a minute, I'm counting the hexes."

That type of thing is mildly annoying in the game. At least to me as the DM.

 

[med stud]

Otherwise you'd be required to punch your cleric when he tried to heal you - he's casting a spell in your threatened zone!
-Hyp.

I never really thought of it that way

Thanks for the answer!

 

[SpikeyFreak]

But, it can still be annoying to a DM.

Last Sunday, it was our party archer's turn and I asked him, "Ok, what are you doing?". His response: "Wait a minute, I'm counting the hexes."

That type of thing is mildly annoying in the game. At least to me as the DM.

I was beginning to wonder at your absence, KarinsDad, it was really pretty quite around here.

--Antagonistic Spikey

Ps I agree with you that the AoO can be taken too far metagamically.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I never really thought of it that way

'course... it does give you a good excuse to punch your cleric if he annoys you.

"I thought I had to by the rules! No? Okay, I'll try to remember that next time..."

-Hyp.

 

[med stud]

'course... it does give you a good excuse to punch your cleric if he annoys you.

"I thought I had to by the rules! No? Okay, I'll try to remember that next time..."

-Hyp.

Hmm, I better go buying some spiked gauntlets for the next adventure

 

[the Jester]

But, it can still be annoying to a DM.

Last Sunday, it was our party archer's turn and I asked him, "Ok, what are you doing?". His response: "Wait a minute, I'm counting the hexes."

That type of thing is mildly annoying in the game. At least to me as the DM.

Absolutely! I don't allow pcs to count squares or hexes on our battlemats, the characters don't have convenient squares to count.

 

[Albereth]

Last Sunday, it was our party archer's turn and I asked him, "Ok, what are you doing?". His response: "Wait a minute, I'm counting the hexes."

That type of thing is mildly annoying in the game. At least to me as the DM.

I bring along a ruler and ask the casters/archers to show me where they are targetting and then we measure out the distance to the target and then figure the spread from there. With the range of most of the offensive arsenal of spells this is not too bad but on the shorter range ones I have seen some interesting things happen.

 

[Grendel]

Those of you who do not like character counting squares or hexes.

Do you realize you are giving an adventage to the PLAYERS who are able to quickly count or acurately guess the distance between areas.

What you are assuming is that the CHARACTER has as little or as much knoledge, skill, or information as the PLAYER.

___________________________________

The only thing I dislike is the ablity of wizard to "center" their fireball exactly so that it hits the monster the PCs are fighting but not the PC's, even though they are actively exchaning blows in combat. But I am able to suspend my disblelive enought that I can imagine said wizard has a perception greater than my own and would be able to guage such things with realative ease.

The problem here is assuming that YOU are as (or more) adept than the character (or players characters) that you control.

Imagine a heroic action movie with you as the star. How many gunfights will you win, how many master villians will you outsmart, how many minutes will you hold your breath under water.

Hopefully not as long as the characters in you campaign, or you are deabilitaing the PC's to a non-heroic level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Those of you who do not like character counting squares or hexes.

Do you realize you are giving an adventage to the PLAYERS who are able to quickly count or acurately guess the distance between areas.

What you are assuming is that the CHARACTER has as little or as much knoledge, skill, or information as the PLAYER.

As little or as much? What does that mean?

Actually, I think characters should have less knowledge of rules mechanics. For example, a player knows that if he is 105 feet away, his Longbow will be at –2 whereas if he is at 95 feet, it is at –0.

So, when a character is about 20 “5 foot hexes” away, it really is metagaming if the player counts out the hexes to determine whether he should move 5 feet closer.

The only thing I dislike is the ablity of wizard to "center" their fireball exactly so that it hits the monster the PCs are fighting but not the PC's, even though they are actively exchaning blows in combat. But I am able to suspend my disblelive enought that I can imagine said wizard has a perception greater than my own and would be able to guage such things with realative ease.

Actually, I have had a house rule on that precise thing since early 2E days. The player of our party Wizard got so annoyed when he accidentally fried a few party members with a Fireball spell that he declared he would never use that spell again.

So, I’ve decided to suspend my disbelief like you did and get rid of that rule. However, I still have a house rule for when a spell caster does not have clear visual points of reference (i.e. casting into mid-air or into a fog) when casting an area of effect spell.