Can PC's calculate with AoO's?

[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.